UK: 1 million workers strike to defend pensions

Tuesday 28th March 2006 saw over a million workers take part in the largest one day strike in Britain since the general strike of 1926.

Submitted by libcom on March 30, 2006

Every town, borough and city in the country saw workers set up multiple picket lines to defend their pension rights.

This attack on pension rights is part of the global neo-liberal attack on welfare, employment rights and the environment that is provoking a wave of global resistance. On the same day just across the channel in France millions of workers were also on the streets and on strike.

This massive one-day show of strength comes after decades of defeat for the trade union movement in Britain, but on 28th March over a million workers stood together and caught a glimpse of their potential power to change the world.

700,000 of the strikers were women, making this also the largest ever women's strike in British history. Thousands of schools were shut by the action, along with leisure centres, town halls, refuse collections and many other local services. The strike had many other dramatic effects, with striking workers shutting down all Mersey road tunnels and ferry crossings, along with the Tyne road tunnel, the Humber Bridge and Thames barrier. In Scotland the strikers made both the Forth and Tay Road Bridges toll-free for the day! Other transport operations shut by the strike included the Tyne and Wear Metro, bus services in several major cities, all bus and rail services in Northern Ireland and the Bradford and Leeds Airport.

After picketing in the morning, thousands of striking workers then joined marches and rallies in town and city centres. According to Unison more than 850 people attend a march and rally in the centre of Nottingham, with similar well-attended protests reported in Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool and London. Hundreds of other local rallies were held outside town halls everywhere.

Twelve unions are involved in the dispute including UNISON, the GMB and the TGWU. Following changes over the last couple of decades including the contracting out of council services and the spinning off of Universities (Polytechnics at the time) workers in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are not confined to Local Government. The proposal that sparked the dispute came from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and it calls for: "the removal of the early retirement mechanism known as the Rule of 85 from October 2006 and the introduction of some new flexibilities to the scheme allowed under the new tax law which comes into force from April 2006". Rule 85 allows some workers with enough service to retire at 60.

Last year civil servants, health workers and teachers threatened strike action over similar attacks on their pensions but a deal was negotiated a with the union leaderships which, while protecting the pensions provisions of existing workers, unfortunately also allowed the bosses to start new workers on worse terms and conditions. However, at the moment, the government is denying this deal to those under the local government scheme. The local government union leaders want to make a similar deal to that negotiated for other public sector workers. There is debate amongst union members about this strategy, with some activists arguing that a real and lasting victory should also include protecting the pensions of future workers. Millions of workers in the private sector also face attacks on their pensions, as well as a general government assault on the state pension in the future.

This day will have inspired many to feel that it is possible to win a better deal for ordinary people by taking mass direct action.



8 years 4 months ago

In reply to by

Submitted by Steven. on February 7, 2016

For reference, there was extensive discussion about this here in our forums:

Also in the end the unions, primarily Unison, stitched up the result by calling off planned future action after this one-day event, achieved a couple of concessions, like the preservation of the rule of 85, and got a less worse off. They then presented the less worse offer to the membership to vote on, saying it was an "improvement", when of course it was not an improvement on our conditions but was a worse deal. I don't remember the exact result but it was over 90% in favour, on a pretty small turnout.