Cherie's Place

Looking windswept in London

The stalwarts got up early to man the picket lines again.  The temperature was only -1 today but it still felt rather chilly until the sun came out. We shared this duty with another department that occupies the building with us. Some of their colleagues very kindly brought hot coffee and biscuits out for us, which was very welcome To warm up at the end of our duty we visited the local all day breakfast establishment where I had a tasty bacon buttie and a welcome cup of tea.

Mark Serwotka, General Secretary commenting in the latest edition of PCS view:

In 1987, Margaret Thatcher - who made huge cuts in the civil service - approved the current terms of our compensation scheme. If it was a fair scheme then, why does the present Labour government tell us that it is not fair now for the people who, for years, have suffered low pay on the basis that they have secure jobs?

The answer seems to lie in the fact that Gordon Brown believes it would be wrong to take parliamentary action to curb bankers’ bonuses because they are a contractual right, but it is apparently all right for the contractual rights of civil and public servants to be ripped up to save money.

Gus O’Donnell has written to civil servants to tell them the cuts are ‘fair and reasonable’ and concessions have been made to the low paid. But almost half of PCS members would be worse off, in some cases by tens of thousands of pounds. PCS does not accept that this is a fair and reasonable way to save money to pay for a financial crisis caused by the greed and stupidity of the banks.

Mr O’Donnell was quick to tell us that other unions have accepted the fairness of the proposals. It is disappointing that some unions have accepted cuts in their members’ entitlements and allowed themselves to be cited by him in his demand that PCS members should ‘think hard about how to vote’ in the ballot. But that is for them. PCS represents almost three times the number of civil and public servants than the other unions combined.

PCS cannot accept changes to the scheme which would leave almost half of our union suffering a detriment. We must be united to win protection for the other half. An agreement with the government which saves money and protects all members’ existing entitlements is affordable and possible.

Taking industrial action is never an easy decision to take but this national ballot is the most important one for PCS members in years.

The political parties are all talking about massive public spending cuts after the next general election. The government’s changes to the compensation scheme are clearly designed to make it cheaper and easier to cut and privatise our jobs, whether by a Labour or Tory government.

We must build the pressure on the government to reach an agreement which is truly fair to its own employees.

The updated photo gallery of picket lines in Shropshire can be found here.

Today I awoke from my slumbers at a very unearthly hour so that I could join my colleagues on the picket line outside my building. The temperature when I arrived was -5 so I was glad I had dressed with extra layers.

Hundreds of civil servants across Shropshire launched a 48-hour strike joining the 270,000 that are expected to strike around the country in a row over redundancy pay. This is the biggest walk out of civil servants since 1987. We received welcome support from passing motorists and colleagues from other Trade Unions.

We are taking action because the Government have scrapped the old terms and conditions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme and, after several months negotiating with Trade Unions, decided to impose new terms without mutual agreement. The PCS Union is seeking to get back to the negotiating table and come to a mutually agreeable set of terms and conditions.

After manning picket lines I met up with other Shropshire activists to attended a march and rally in Birmingham along with around 200 other people from across the Midlands region. The rally was addressed by the Midlands Regional Chairman, Tony Conway, the PCS Assistant Secretary, Chris Baugh, and speakers from Amicus, NUT and the FBU, who generously presented us with a donation of £1000 towards the hardship fund.

After the rally there was time for a relaxing drink with friends and colleagues before heading home for a well earned rest.

Related links:

Shropshire Star Front Page

Shropshire Star - Workers Walk Out

Picket Lines Photo Gallery

Birmingham March & Rally Photo Gallery

MYTH # 4. Most public sector workers retire at 60 on two thirds of their final salary

REALITY: The majority of workers joining public sector pension schemes will retire and claim their pension at the age of 65.

What are the Facts?

Many reports about pensions would lead you to believe that most public sector workers retire at the age of 60 on two-thirds salary, but in fact this only applies to the very few people who work in public service for forty years or more. The pension age for many public sector workers has always been 65 and this now applies to most new joiners.

The average pension in Local Government is around just £4,000 per year, and just £2,000 for women while in the Civil Service the average is £6,500. The average pension for a female NHS worker is £5,000 but the median pension for women is much less. In fact half of all women pensioners who have worked in the NHS get a pension of less than £3,500 per year.

The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

MYTH # 3. The discrepancy between private and public sector pensions needs to be tackled by punishing the public sector

REALITY. We should level up pensions - not level them down

What are the Facts?

Many justify attacks on public sector pensions by the decline in the number and quality of private sector defined benefit pension schemes.

Around 85% of public sector employees are members of an employer-sponsored pension scheme, most of whom have a Defined Benefit scheme. However, in the private sector 40% of employees are members of an employer-sponsored pension scheme but only 15% of employees are active members of a Defined Benefit scheme.

Private sector employees have been hit hard by the employer retreat from good pensions. But this does not justify punishing public sector workers. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Public sector pensions support lower-paid members of the workforce. Well-paid private sector employees are likely to get a decent pension on top of their pay. The real difference between public and private sectors is among the low and average paid. The attack on public sector pensions may be wrapped up in rhetoric about fat-cat public servants, but it is really an attack on the low paid in the public sector. Only 20% of private sector employees who earn between £100 and £200 a week are members of an employer-sponsored pension scheme whereas 70% of public sector employees in the same pay range are pension scheme members.

The recent economic turmoil has had a huge impact on private sector DB and DC schemes. Savers in DC schemes have seen the value of pension pots plummet, while the private employer sponsors of DB schemes now have to make up the deficits. Unfunded public sector schemes have not been hit by market turbulence. Tax payers have not suddenly had to find funds to make up scheme deficits, and government can plan for the future funding of public sector pensions.

Private sector schemes need to be funded because there can be no guarantee that the sponsoring employer will still be around when staff retire. Public sector employers, ie the state, will exist in perpetuity and, as in other countries such as the USA, we tend to have unfunded pensions for central government functions such as health and the armed forces but funded schemes in local government.

To protect future pensions, private sector schemes (and funded public sector schemes) are regulated to ensure they have sufficient funds to meet their future commitments. But this tends to be on a cautious basis and deal with stock market volatility thus pushing up private sector pension costs. Funded public sector schemes can plot a more stable long term course. All schemes have to deal with issues such as increased life expectancy. The public sector has done this with the cost-sharing agreements backed up with a ceiling on employer costs described above.

As public sector schemes operate on a sustainable basis and employer contributions are capped, there is no financial justification to reduce benefit levels simply because employers have savaged private sector schemes.

Just how generous are public sector pensions?

Five million employees working in the public sector qualify for pensions, including 1.3m in NHS, 1.6m in local government, 600,000 teachers, 600,000 civil servants, 200,000 in the armed forces, 150,000 police officers and 50,000 firefighters.

The mean average public sector pension is £7,000 but the majority of public sector pensioners have pensions of less than £5,000.

The value of the main schemes in the public sector for new entrants are similar to a medium private sector final salary, at around 21% to 24% of salary on average.

Index - Media myths about civil and public services.

But where was I?

A rooftop in Brussels or to be more precise part of the statue that adorns the top of the triumphal arch which is the centrepiece of the Cinquantenaire.

For more of this weeks PhotoHunt pictures check out tnchick.

Yesterday, in my capacity as PCS Regional committee member along with several colleagues from Shropshire I joined other PCS members from around the country in a mass lobby of Parliament. We chose an economical and leisurely transport option by using the Wrexham and Shropshire service.

Lunchtime was a Faulty Towers-like experience where we didn’t quite manage to grab a late breakfast.  We were told that they didn’t do food (not even breakfast) until after 12 O’clock but when we tried again after 12 they said they didn’t do breakfast because it was after 12!!!  We all rethought our choices and placed our orders. We were then informed we would have to eat upstairs because the lift wasn’t working. Our food arrived late and was cold and not completely as ordered but due to the tight time schedule we had to go along with it, although we did get free coffees all round.

I missed part of the initial PCS briefing at Parliament because the PCS President asked me to help the PCS national press officer so I will hand you over to my colleague who was present at the meeting to give a full account and how the MPs that we lobbied were very supportive of our action to achieve a negotiated settlement on the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

Yesterday around 100 representatives of PCS, including a strong delegation from Shropshire, and from across the UK descended on Parliament to lobby MPs over cuts to the redundancy terms for civil and public servants. The lobby and rally come as a quarter of a million civil and public servants gear up for a 48 hour stoppage on 8 and 9 March over the unilateral changes, which will see staff robbed of up to a third of their entitlements and see loyal civil and public servants lose tens of thousands of pounds if they are forced out of their job. Indeed our colleagues in RAF Cosford are still in scope of DTR and if they do not want to move to St Athans will be offered a worse redundancy package should these changes to the scheme take place. PCS have made it clear that there is still time for the Government to negotiate a fair settlement on this issue and Mark Serwotka wrote to the Minister on Monday asking for further meetings and if necessary to go to ACAS. To date the Minister Tessa Jowell has not responded.

Political pressure is mounting over the forced changes, with 155 MPs and former ministers signing an early day motion (EDM) urging the government to re-examine the ‘disappointing and unfair proposals’. I am pleased to announce that MP Mark Pritchard became the first MP in Shropshire to sign the EDM after our meeting with him yesterday. Additionally MP David Wright has now written a letter to the Minister on our behalf and MP Daniel Kawczynski is writing a letter to the Minister and putting down a written question in the House of Commons on our behalf after our meeting with them yesterday. All 3 local MPs agreed with the fact that they want to see a negotiated settlement and support PCS in calling for a negotiated settlement.

The Judicial Review is being stalled by Treasury Barristers not being available in March to appear in the High Court and many MP’s are now taking this up with the Minister since they believe this to be another key way to stop retrospective changes to our terms and conditions.

Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: “It is disgraceful that the government has denied MPs a vote on these changes which are aimed at cutting jobs on the cheap. Instead the government has relied on an arcane parliamentary procedure to avoid any debate, discussion or vote to change the law. “It is clear that political pressure is growing with MPs and former ministers signing an early day motion that urges the government to re-examine the ‘disappointing and unfair proposals’.

Over 150 MPs recognise that the government should be protecting those who have given loyal service over a number of years rather than slashing their redundancy entitlements and cutting their jobs on the cheap. The government needs to pay heed to growing opposition from MPs and reach a negotiated settlement.”

Next Tuesday the Welsh Assembly is being closed since Labour Welsh Assembly Members have voted not to cross the PCS Picket Line!

This is a fight that we can and must win and it is important to show the Government that we are prepared to take a stance against retrospective changes to our terms and conditions.

Freedom is important to include in my ‘100 Reasons to be Glad’ because there isn’t a single day goes by that I am not reminded that our freedoms are constantly being eroded away.

Freedom

I WILL not follow you, my bird,
I will not follow you.
I would not breathe a word, my bird,
To bring thee here anew.

I love the free in thee, my bird,
The lure of freedom drew;
The light you fly toward, my bird,
I fly with thee unto.

And there we yet will meet, my bird,
Though far I go from you
Where in the light outpoured, my bird,
Are love and freedom too.

by George William Russell

MYTH #2. Savings could be made by replacing final salary (defined benefits) schemes by a defined contribution scheme

REALITY. Scrapping defined benefit pensions would mean increased public spending on public sector pensions in the short and medium term

What are the Facts?

David Cameron has proposed replacing defined benefit schemes with defined contribution schemes in order to save costs. In defined contribution (DC) schemes (also known as money purchase schemes) the pension payment depends on the value of the investment in the individual’s pension pot upon retirement. Most public sector pensions are final salary schemes (also known as defined benefits schemes) which guarantee a pension based on the number of years worked for the organisation and the final salary upon leaving.

If new or existing staff were switched to DC schemes, then spending on pensions would increase. This is because most of the cost of paying pensions at any time is covered by using the contributions paid by or on behalf of current employees. If those contributions are instead paid into members’ own DC pots then they could not be used to pay for the pensions of already retired public employees.

In other words tax payers would be paying at the same time for the pensions of those who have already retired and to build up funds to pay pensions in the future for staff currently working - a double whammy.

If the quality of public sector pensions is substantially reduced this could also lead to many retired public employees becoming reliant on means tested benefits. This is because many public sector employees are low paid workers, already on quite low pensions. Increased spending on means test benefits would offset some of any saving on pension contributions in the longer term.

Public Sector Pensions - Definitions

Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Schemes

A Defined Benefit (DB) scheme (also known as a Final Salary scheme) offers a defined or predetermined level of pension benefit. The benefits are expressed as a fraction of the final salary for every complete year worked for the organisation or as a scheme member of the final salary pension.

In a Defined Contribution (DC) scheme (also known as a Money Purchase Scheme), a pension fund is built up using employee and employer contributions. The pension available at retirement depends on the level of contribution paid, investment returns earned over time and the cost of purchasing the pension at retirement. These things are not known in advance. Therefore the pension it produces cannot be known. The contribution is defined, but not the pension.

Public Sector Pensions - Definitions

Funded and Unfunded Schemes

The terms funded and unfunded do not relate in any way to the contributions made by employees. Public sector scheme members contribute between 3.5% and 11% of their salary annually to their own pensions.

The Local Government Pension Scheme and the Universities Superannuation Scheme are ‘funded’ schemes, in which the funds required to pay future pensions are built up over time. This separate fund allows resources to be planned and managed over time to meet pension liabilities, as occurs with private sector DB schemes. There are around 4.25 million active, deferred and pensioner members of public sector funded schemes

Other public sector schemes such as those for civil servants, health workers, teachers, firefighters and uniformed police officers are ‘unfunded.’ Current pensions for staff are paid directly from central government’s current revenue (made up of contributions paid by civil servants, teachers, fire fighters and uniformed police officers in employment, and their employers). There are over 5.5 million active, deferred and pensioner members of unfunded schemes.

The significance of the difference between funded and unfunded schemes is often misunderstood or misinterpreted. Contributions are calculated and paid in unfunded schemes in much the same way as in funded schemes. The main difference between the two is that while unfunded schemes, in effect, lend contributions directly to the Government and receive a designated rate of interest in return, funded schemes keep control of their contributions and invest them in a range of assets.

When benefits are paid by the unfunded schemes, it is portrayed as public expenditure. In reality it is largely repayment by the Government to schemes of the invested contributions with the money being passed on as benefits to scheme members. Deficits (and surpluses) are identified at scheme valuations in both funded and unfunded schemes and addressed in the same way by adjustment of contributions and/or benefits.

Index - Media myths about civil and public services.

MYTHS AND FACTS

MYTH #1 The cost of public sector pensions is spiralling out of control.

REALITY Costs are set to increase somewhat (as are all pensions costs), but not by an unsustainable amount.

What are the Facts?

Many attacks on public sector pensions give a huge number for the cost of future liabilities. But they rarely explain what this means.

Public sector pension liabilities go a long way into the future. Young people at work today building up a public sector pension could well live for another eighty years. If you estimate the costs of all public sector pensions for decades into the future and then present it as a bill that has to be paid immediately, then it is hardly surprising that you end up with a frighteningly big number.

For example an organisation called the British North America Committee got headlines recently for saying that the cost of public sector pensions was 85% of GDP (the total wealth produced by the country each year). Their press release said:

“Public sector pension liabilities are £1,177 billion, about £20,000 for every person in the UK, equivalent to 85% of GDP”

But these figures do not mean very much. This is just another attempt to work out the total cost of public sector pensions going for decades into the future and expressing it as if it all had to be paid in one go, rather than over the decades the pensions are in payment.

This is what David Lipsey, the chairman of Straight Statistics - a pressure group that campaigns against the misuse of statistics - said about this report:

“The innocent might think that this means 85 per cent of our GDP in future is going to go to support those getting public sector pensions, leaving just 15 per cent for the rest of us. This is plain rubbish.

“The liability to pay public sector pensions is stretched over many, many years - from now until the last existing public sector employees dies. It is a statistical howler that would make an “O” level student blush to compare this with the figure for GDP for a single year. To make matters worse, we can safely expect GDP to increase over the years to come (if it does not, neither will pensions, reducing the actual liability). So the proportion of present GDP represented by the liabilities is even less relevant. What matters, if anything, is the proportion of future GDP that they represent.”

The Treasury does indeed produce estimates of the cost of paying public sector pensions as a proportion of GDP (not taking into account contributions). They show an increase from 1.5% of GDP to 2% by 2027-28. After this projections show a slight decline in the proportion of GDP taken up by public sector pensions. It is not surprising that there is some cost increase in the next few decades as we live in an ageing society. Either the cost of pensions will increase or many more pensioners will live in poverty. But public sector pensions take up a much smaller share of GDP than state pensions and long term care - also both set to increase in the face of longer lives.

The second claim made is that the cost of public service pensions is “out of control”. This is not the case. Not only is the share of public sector pensions in the country’s wealth less than 2% of GDP every year in the Treasury’s projections, the changes negotiated in many unfunded schemes caps employer costs with employees picking up the bill if people live longer than expected and pension costs rise more than expected.

Another way of looking at the cost of pensions is known as the “net public service pensions” net public service pension cost. It is the difference between benefits paid out to today’s pensioners from unfunded schemes and current contributions paid by current staff. In the current financial year this is estimated to be £4.1 billion or about 0.3% of GDP.

This is eminently affordable, but the figure can change a lot from year to year. This is not because of bad planning or anything being “out of control” - simply because it is the difference between two much bigger numbers that are not linked to each in the short term. These big numbers are:

• the costs of pensions paid out each year - and pension levels are linked to the cost
  of living; and
• the total contributions paid by staff and employers in the public sector, which is linked
  to the numbers of staff and the year’s pay settlement.

Over time earnings tend to go up more than prices so this will tend to reduce the net cost of pensions. But there can be sharp variations from year to year - particularly as pay in the public sector is often held back by politicians and then catches up once the damage done to recruitment and retention needs to be mended.

In 2009/10, for example, the increase in the cost of benefits will be determined largely by the 5% increase in the cost of living (RPI) in September 2008. But the increase in contribution income will be determined largely by the size of pay increases in the public sector during 2009/10. So when politicians freeze or hold public sector pay below inflation it has the odd effect of appearing to make pensions more expensive, even though those extra costs are more than met by reduced expenditure on the wider wage bill.

Of course other factors will also affect the cost of pensions. For example, how many people retire each year and how long pensioners live will affect the cost of pensions and the number of current staff and what grades they are on will determine the income figures. But these change relatively slowly over time and don’t produce the big changes between years that critics seize on.

Pension Reforms

The Government and trade unions have negotiated various reforms to public sector schemes in recent years. The reforms were made mostly in response to higher demands from increased life expectancy, with schemes now sharing the risk of members living longer.

Most public sector pension schemes have increased the normal pension age from 60 to 65 for new entrants, in line with most private sector schemes. Only the armed forces, police and fire schemes have kept theirs below 65, reflecting the physical demands of these jobs.

Nurses, teachers and local government employees are now paying more on average towards their pensions than before the reforms. This agreement resulted in an initial increase in member contributions of 0.5% on average with possible further rises when valuations take place every 3 or 4 years.

New cost-sharing arrangements were put in place that mean that if higher pension benefits are paid or if life expectancy continues to rise more quickly than expected, the resulting cost will fall mainly on public sector scheme members rather than on the taxpayer.

The Pension Policy Institute2 has estimated the reforms have reduced the immediate cost of
benefits by 12.5% and the Government expects the reforms to result in savings of around
£13bn on the NHS, teachers’ and civil service schemes, spread over a 50-year period.

__________________________

2 Pension Policy Institute (2008) An assessment of the Government’s reforms to public sector pensions

Index - Media myths about civil and public services.

Following the Snowdrop Walk onto the Mile Walk eventually takes you to the river which looks particularly nice with the blue sky reflecting in it.  The walk was designed by Thomas Leggett in 1770:

Most of the trees and shrubs along the river-side walk are species that might have been planted in the 1770s.  An exception is the ‘Ravenna’ pine grown from the seed of a tree thought to have been brought by the last Lady Berwick from Italy.  The venerable trunk of  an elderly Acacia conveys the air of antiquity for which these tress were admired in the 18th century.  It was due to the vigilance of the 8th Lord Berwick that so many mature trees have survived along this walk and were saved from being felled to meet the wartime need for timber. *

*From the National Trust guide book.

Headlines about public sector pensions seem to have been appearing on a daily basis ever since the credit crunch started to bite. Attacks on pensions have been made by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the CBI, alongside various newspaper and internet commentators.

These attacks say that public sector workers are unfairly rewarded and benefiting from “gold plated” pay and pensions. They rightly identify a growing gap between public and private sector pensions caused by the employer retreat from decent pensions in the private sector, but wrongly conclude that the answer is to level down public sector pensions. They say that public sector workers should “share the pain” and that public sector pensions should be cut to the level of the private sector. Unions defend public sector pensions but not äs a special case. We want to see everyone at work able to look forward to a decent pension when they retire.

The Attacks

“My vision over time is to move increasingly towards defined-contribution rather than final-salary schemes” for employees in the public sector. “We have got to end the apartheid in pensions.” David Cameron

“Taxpayers who are struggling to build their own personal pension will be lumbered for decades by the cost of covering public sector workers who retire years earlier on risk-free pensions.” CBI

“It is unfair for businesses and families struggling in the downturn to pay higher taxes to fund pensions that they cannot afford for themselves or their employees.” Institute of Directors

Spending on public sector pensions is “completely out of control”. Vince Cable, Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats

“Gold-plated public sector pensions…are unjust, unsustainable and unfair to ordinary people, many of whom have had to postpone their own retirement or seen their private pensions reduced to nothing.” Taxpayers’ Alliance1

__________________________

1 The Taxpayers’ Alliance is a pressure group that campaigns against tax and public spending. Many of its staff and founders appear to be current or former Conservative Party members.

Index - Media myths about civil and public services.

In the run up to the General Election there will be a lot of spin in the media on how the public sector is draining financial resources at the expense of the taxpayer.

The TUC in conjunction with Trade Unionists have produced a couple of leaflets that explain/debunk the myths that surround public sector spending, pensions and privatisation.

I will post the articles as a series of posts starting tomorrow, so if you are interested watch this space…

The rain water enlivens all living beings of the earth both movable (insects, animals, humans and so on), and immovable (plants, trees and so on), and then returns to the ocean, its value multiplied a millionfold.

Chanakya, India

The walks around Attingham are lovely at this time of year. For the first time I have managed to catch the snowdrops when there were at their best. I had the added bonus of snow on the ground and the sun blazing away overhead. The perfect setting to get some inspirational photo ideas.

It was lucky I able to go last week because this Sunday I will be in the hospital for the 4th time this week awaiting blood test results (not mine). Something that you are told takes 45 minutes seems to take literally hours for some reason…  The nurses however are all lovely

Apparently there has been a daily feeding of the deer at Attingham Park recently.  I didn’t notice this activity when I visited last weekend, I did however still get to see the deer close up.

For more of this weeks PhotoHunt pictures check out tnchick.

On 2nd  February 2010 the revised terms and conditions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme were published.  You will note the spin in the papers and on the civil service website that 5 unions agreed to the new terms:

These reflect the outcome of further discussions with the unions and have been agreed between the Cabinet Office and the FDA, Prospect, the GMB, Unite and the Prison Officers’ Association

Those 5 unions represent only a small proportion of civil servants, the vast majority being represented by the PCS union who were still negotiating the proposed terms.  Concessions had been made by both the cabinet office and PCS when the cabinet office ceased negotiations and and imposed the new set of rules.

PCS decided the only option was to ballot the members to see if they were willing to take strike action and/or action short of a strike to defend their terms and conditions.  The results of the ballot were published today:

Up to 270,000 civil and public servants from across the UK are set to launch a month of industrial action with a 48 hour strike on 8 and 9 March in a dispute over unilateral changes to redundancy terms,PCS announced today.

Strike action could hit civil and public services every week of next month from Monday 8 March following strong support in a ballot which saw 63.4% of those voting backing strike action and 81.4% supporting an overtime ban.

The strikes, which will involve Jobcentre staff, tax workers, coastguards, border agency officials, courts staff and driving test examiners, are a result of the government and Cabinet Office making unilateral changes to the civil service compensation scheme.

The changes will see staff robbed of up to a third of their entitlements and see loyal civil and public servants lose tens of thousands of pounds if they are forced out of a job. The government is looking to save £500 million through the changes, based on the number of jobs it has axed over the last three years.

With all the main political parties planning deep spending cuts, the union fears that the cuts to the scheme will lead to tens of thousands of job losses on the cheap.

The union’s national executive committee will be meeting next week on 2, 3 and 4 March to finalise further strike dates, which could include national walkouts and targeted strike action.

Commenting, Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: “These cuts, which will see loyal civil and public servants lose tens of thousands of pounds if they are forced out of a job, are more about crude politicking than making savings.

“We have suggested ways in which the government can make these savings whilst protecting the rights of existing members, yet it seems intent on penalising the people who keep this country running.

“With civil and public service jobs increasingly at risk, this is a cynical attempt to cut jobs on the cheap which will ultimately damage the services we all rely on. The government needs to recognise the depth of anger which has been demonstrated by this ballot result and find the political will to negotiate a settlement that avoids a sustained campaign of industrial action.”

Some final thoughts from me:-

The other unions didn’t ask their members what they thought about the new terms, they just decided on behalf of the membership. I know that some of the members of those unions are angry about that and would not have agreed to the terms if their union had asked them.

The PCS union is not affiliated to any political party.

Strike action is always a last resort which comes about because meaningful communications have broken down!

I am very fond of Coffee & Walnut Cake and the one they make at Attingham Park is the best I have ever tasted. Now you know why I like to find excuses to visit Attingham Park