Civil servants strike over proposed job cuts

The first national strike by UK civil servants for more than a decade took place in November 2004. Its main objective was to protest against government plans to cut a large number of civil service posts over the next four years, but the strike also highlighted other issues on which civil service trade unions are in conflict with the government.

Following a ballot in which members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) voted nearly two to one in favour of a one-day strike, around 200,000 civil servants took industrial action and other forms of protest on 5 November 2004 as part of a wider campaign against government policies. The immediate cause of the strike arose from the government’s public expenditure review for the years 2006 to 2008, published in July 2004 (UK0407105F). Alongside a commitment to large increases in expenditure on health and education services, the review outlined ambitious targets for efficiency improvements, so that savings in 'back-office functions' could be spent on 'front-line services'. These plans envisaged a reduction in the number of civil service posts of around 80,000, and the relocation of 20,000 other posts out of London and the South East by 2010.

Background to the dispute

In April 2004, the civil service employed 554,000 staff in 150 government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public organisations. More than 80% of the staff are members of one of the three main trade unions: the FDA represents 11,500 of the most senior managers and policy staff; Prospect organises 35,000 engineers, scientists and managers in the civil service, as well as twice this number of staff in the private sector; and PCS represents more than 300,000 mainly non-specialist staff, including some middle-management grades. As the planned cuts would have the greatest impact on members of the PCS, its leaders organised a ballot of the membership to mobilise support for a one-day national strike.

In its campaign literature, the PCS highlighted its strong objection to the planned cuts, and the absence of consultation before they had been announced, but it also identified other long-standing grievances with department managers and government ministers.

• A key issue is the problem of low pay and the imposition of settlements in departments where collective agreements have not been reached. Pay bargaining was devolved to each government department and agency in the 1990s, but since 2003 the Treasury has imposed pay limits on negotiations. In some departments, the cost of equal pay adjustments and incremental progression has meant that the funds available for cost-of-living increases are very limited. The PCS has campaigned for the return of a national pay framework that establishes higher minimum salary levels, and the abolition of performance-related pay schemes.

• As part of a wider review of pension policy in 2002, the government proposed that it would raise the normal public sector retirement age from 60 to 65 for new entrants, and consider whether the final salary scheme should amended.

• In response to evidence that sick leave for civil servants had increased to an average of 10 days a year, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced a review of the procedures covering short- and long-term sickness in July 2004.

The PCS announced on 22 October that of the 265,000 members balloted, 72,780 voted for the strike, and 40,142 voted against. In the light of the relatively low turn-out (42%) and margin of support for strike action, government ministers criticised the union’s planned strike, and restated their commitment to seek efficiency savings so that essential investment could be made in front-line services.

Impact of the strike

Most commentators judged that the one-day strike held on 5 November was a success. The PCS estimated that up to 200,000 civil servants participated. This led to the closure of museums and art galleries, and disrupted the work of job centres, benefit offices, driving test examiners and many other services. Marches and rallies were held in cities throughout the country, and in London, a protest march of more than 1,000 trade union members was addressed by leaders of other public service unions, as well as by Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS. He argued that the strike had demonstrated the strength of feeling among civil servants, and that government ministers should begin to listen, as the planned cuts would 'damage the very services they have sought to improve'. The Chancellor stated that while the government would provide help with information, relocation and retraining to help staff move into front-line work within the public sector, it would not be diverted from making necessary cost savings.

The campaign of the PCS was given strong support by a Trades Union Congress (TUC) report published five days before the strike. This argued that the proposed cut in civil service jobs was likely to produce less than 6% of the savings the government hoped to achieve through its public sector efficiency reforms. As most of the efficiency gains would have to come from work reorganisation, the implementation of new technology, and the reform of procurement practices, job cuts and the accompanying staff demoralisation could prove to be counter-productive. The report also noted that the civil service comprised only 10% of the public sector workforce, and an even smaller proportion of the increase of half-a-million public sector jobs between 1997 and 2003. Although the number of civil service staff increased by more than 13,000 in the year ending April 2004, most of the extra staff were employed in 'front-line' service delivery (for example, the introduction of new tax credits, staffing demands arising from growth in the prison population, and the operational needs in dealing with asylum and immigration issues). The TUC report also argued that recent research had shown that productivity in UK public services compared favourably with that in other countries, and that job cuts might lead to a less efficient use of casual or temporary staff.

Commentary

It is not easy to assess the medium- and longer-term implications of the civil service dispute. Most commentators believe that the government’s spending review - and the scope of the planned cuts in civil service posts - was influenced by party political calculations ahead of a general election, expected to be held in May 2005. The Labour Party government and the opposition Conservative Party have competed with each other in outlining plans for controlling future public expenditure in ways that might avoid tax increases or higher government borrowing. Both have claimed that they can make very substantial efficiency savings - despite past failures to do so - and have targeted 'bureaucratic' inefficiencies in the civil service, rather than high-profile health and education services. All three civil service unions have strongly criticised the way in which the planned cuts were announced, and the over-simple distinction between back-office and front-line service delivery.

It may be difficult for the PCS to sustain the high level of support it achieved in the one-day strike in November. As relatively few civil service posts will be cut over the next six months, some commentators have argued that the planned job losses can be achieved without compulsory redundancies if spread over a period of four to five years, not least because of the age profile of staff, and the high level of staff turnover. At the same time, it should be noted that the one-day national strike had been preceded by a large increase in the number of pay disputes in individual departments and agencies, some of which achieved significant concessions. The PCS and Prospect also strongly oppose plans for the privatisation or outsourcing of services, as well as proposals to amend pension and sick leave schemes. For these reasons, it seems likely that the recent increase in industrial unrest in the civil service, and evidence of declining morale amongst staff, will not easily be reversed. (David Winchester, IRRU)