Public sector pay freeze
Jul 5 2009 11:06
The head of the Audit Commission has stated that 'nothing should be off limits' in the quest to attack the wages and living conditions of the working class (well, not in so many words..)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/05/pay-freeze-public-workers
Seeing as so many on these boards work in the public sector what do posters think will be the likely effect on:
-morale in the workplace, i.e. will it lead to demoralisation or a growing anger?
-the recent increased militancy of union speak - how will they cope? What deals will they do?
From a personal point of view, in the last 5 years or so, my pay increase hasn't been more than 2% on average - that's not the same as a pay cut though... Partially it will depend on how effective the state is in getting people to accept the two fold idea that a) public sector workers are 'priviledged' and b) it's all for the common good.
Jul 5 2009 17:42
#2
Obviously there's a division of labour amongst the bourgeiosie, which allows for all sorts of permutations, e.g. the head of the Audit Comission saying there's needs to be cuts, and Darling saying 'oh, no there doesn't'...until after the election, when whoever's chancellor says 'oh yes there does...'
It's a 2 pronged attack, as I wrote in the introduction, so the question is one of judging the general mood. We're coming up to the summer holidays, traditionally a quiet time for industrial disputes (although check the thread 'Summer of rage predicted').
Given the size of the public sector (the NHS being the 3rd largest employer in the world, according to the article) it would foolish for the state to tackle all the sectors simultaneously, so my betting is on attacks against particular sectors to start with. I'm saying 'start' - they have already started
Quote:
The Local Government Association admitted that councils were braced for further cuts, with 6,700 jobs already having disappeared in just six months.
Jul 5 2009 17:47
#3
miles wrote:
Obviously there's a division of labour amongst the bourgeiosie, which allows for all sorts of permutations, e.g. the head of the Audit Comission saying there's needs to be cuts, and Darling saying 'oh, no there doesn't'...until after the election, when whoever's chancellor says 'oh yes there does...
I wouldn't agree with that, the way 'bad news' has been released recently reeks of Mandelson's involvement. Whoever wins the next election is going to have to make spending cuts, I don't think there's any division amongst the bourgeoisie about this.
Jul 5 2009 18:14
#4
Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant in the presentation, not the content. Of course whoever wins the next election is going to have to make swinging cuts - for many years to come. Hence the Tories fixation on the 'sums' that Gordon Brown can't get right and their insistence that they can make the best 'efficiencies and get rid of wastage' (i.e. make cuts).
What I meant by division of labour is that different factions of the bourgeiosie can put forward different 'models' and proposals for cuts, while other factions can be seen to be 'defending' particular areas. In this way we are presented as having our 'democratic choice' - to choose which model of cuts we want...
Why focus on Mandelson? The states press and media offices are rather large, with different state departments being in direct competition over these impending cuts, and wanting to lay out their claim to the money.
Jul 5 2009 19:13
#5
miles wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant in the presentation, not the content. Of course whoever wins the next election is going to have to make swinging cuts - for many years to come. Hence the Tories fixation on the 'sums' that Gordon Brown can't get right and their insistence that they can make the best 'efficiencies and get rid of wastage' (i.e. make cuts).What I meant by division of labour is that different factions of the bourgeiosie can put forward different 'models' and proposals for cuts, while other factions can be seen to be 'defending' particular areas. In this way we are presented as having our 'democratic choice' - to choose which model of cuts we want...
Why focus on Mandelson? The states press and media offices are rather large, with different state departments being in direct competition over these impending cuts, and wanting to lay out their claim to the money.
I see what you mean now, but I still think those are fairly artificial differences.
As for focussing on Mandelson, the way that this has been announced is similar to the way other bits of bad news have been announced recently and that suggests to me that the government have adopted this as a tactic for releasing policies that they think will be damaging to their core vote. Getting an 'expert' to announce something as being necessary and then having the government reluctantly degree helps deflect some of the blame from them and this is exactly the kind of thing he does. He may well not be involved but it seems that the government has got a bit better at this kind of thing since he re-joined it. Anyway I'll stop derailing this thread!
Jul 5 2009 21:30
#6
Seeing as how labour know they're going to lose why do they bother announcing unpopular stuff?
Jul 5 2009 22:01
#7
The problem is that bad news keeps coming out on a daily basis irrespective - whether it's from the Treasury, the OECD, the EU... They can't really control the flow of all economic data - after all the bourgeioisie as a whole needs to know the 'reality' of the economic situation, if only in order to carry out whatever programme is necessary (BA, BT, Virgin etc...)
And you can't exactly escape the reality of huge job losses very easily...
Why do you think Labour keeps anouncing the bad news Jef?
On a kind of side note it's starting to annoy me the way the government are announcing policies that they know aren't going to be vote winners. Getting the head of the Audit Commission to announce this, and then having Darling say he can't rule it out. Didn't the same thing happen with public spending cuts and Mervyn King?