Earlier this year, Unison's local government members voted to take strike action to defend their pensions. That action was put on hold after the government revoked an order in parliament that the retirement age had to rise to 65. The local government employers have now come up with even worse proposals and, unless further talks improve that situation, we face the biggest strike since the general strike in 1926.
The employers want to increase the retirement age, increase employee contributions and, even more worryingly, scrap the protection for existing members which was contained in the original order.
Local government and health workers never went into public service for the pay, perks or bonuses - because there aren't any. But one thing they were able to rely on was an adequate pension at the end of their working lives. They had a contract with the government (so they thought) to enable them to retire with a pension that provided security and a buffer against poverty in old age without having to rely on means-tested state benefits. If that pensions promise is ripped up, trust will hit rock bottom.
What's wrong with raising the retirement age to 65 you may ask? Indeed many people in local government and health can and do work until they are 65 and remain in good health. But many never reach this age. New research shows there is a direct correlation between the size of your pension and your life expectancy: those with less than £4,500 a year are twice as likely to die early as those drawing more than £13,000. The average pension in local government is £3,300.
A refuse collector with 40 years service faces a pension cut of £1,434 a year; a social worker with 35 years service looking after vulnerable children faces a cut of £1,350 a year; and an environmental health officer with 23 years service making sure public disease is kept at bay stands to lose £1,458.
And to suggest that NHS workers should be forced to work until they are 65 is living in cloud cuckoo land. As it is 73% of paramedics are forced to retire through ill-health before 60, let alone carry on until they are 65. Forcing staff to work longer will simply raise the level of ill-health retirements and end up costing the NHS more.
And what about the possible risk to patients? People whose capability is compromised by age-related problems, but who are not eligible for ill-health retirement, may continue to work in vital occupations to avoid reducing their pension benefits. This cannot be right and will undermine patient care.
It must be recognised that working for the NHS is physically, mentally and emotionally demanding. It is a highly stressful environment because of the rapid changes in technology, the rapid turnover of patients and constant reforms and changes.
A nurse with 40 years experience would lose £1,863 a year under the plans; a porter would lose £931; an ambulance worker with 36 years service would lose £992; and an occupational therapist with 32 years service would lose £1,822.
Raising the retirement age and cutting benefits is no way to treat workers who have given a lifetime of public service. These dedicated workers paid into their pension scheme out of their wages, and it cannot be right that they should have to pay the price because their employers raided the schemes for political purposes.
· Dave Prentis is general secretary of public services union Unison
