The government's decision to overhaul pension arrangements and add five years to the retirement age of the country's 7 million public sector workers, raising it from 60 to 65, is seen by the more vocal unions as the unacceptable face of public service reform. They plan to make their message both heard, and felt.
Angered by the government's decision to impose, rather than consult, a wide cross section of public sector unions have organised a national schedule of meetings and rallies to be held across the country from noon tomorrow.
While every single public sector worker will be affected by what the Trades Union Congress (TUC) dubs the "work 'til you drop" policy, a raft of additional changes have been proposed for each service sector. These include the abolition of the final salary scheme for NHS and civil service staff, and the end of the popular system which allows council staff to retire at the age of 55 on a full pension if they have served local government for 30 years. The changes vary across the board, and according to the unions, so too has the level of consultation on the sector-specific changes.
Unions say that since pension is de facto deferred pay, and since the government is meant to consult with unions over pay, it is baffling that no meaningful discussion took place when the measure was announced following the publication of the pensions green paper in 2002.
The government justifies its moves by insisting that the growing grey population, living longer than ever before, is forcing its hand because the existing set-up is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Unfortunately for public sector workers, neither the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats are arguing with that.
The unions retort that pensions have traditionally been a powerful incentive to keep stressed-out staff toiling for little reward. Moreover, the TUC pours cold water on the idea that more people are growing older than ever before. It cites figures showing that people on pensions of less than £4,500 a year - more than the average pension received by most council and civil service staff - are twice as likely to die early than those drawing more than £13,000.
The lower public sector retirement age also reflects the particularly arduous nature of key frontline service delivery. Occupational pensions for firefighters and police have traditionally granted an early retirement age of 50 or earlier for those having completed 30 years' service, to compensate for the perceived extra strains and dangers of their work. Research shows that almost two-thirds of firefighters retire on the grounds of ill-health with a lower life expectancy. Despite this, the pension age is nevertheless set to rise to 55.
The TUC remains opposed to all these reforms on the grounds that the government has not made its case for justifying that the changes are either justified or fair.
It argues for a flexible transition from work to retirement - but with no blanket increase in retirement age, both for public sector workers and for the rest of the country's workforce, which faces the spectre of seeing the retirement age rise from 65 to 70.
TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, says the pension changes are a pay cut by another name. "Pay is often lower in the public sector than in comparable private jobs, and stress levels higher," he says. "A reasonable pension has always helped make up for this. Cutting back pension provision will hit morale and staff retention.
"We believe there are alternative ways of achieving government objectives. Some talks about some schemes have begun, but there needs to be a much more serious engagement to negotiate a fair public pension deal," he said.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Union (PCS), argues that the moves are contrary to the New Labour mantra on "choice" in public services. "The government talks about introducing more choice in public services, yet is denying the people who deliver them real choice in public services," he says.
"Rather than forcing people, without negotiation, to work five or more years to receive their pension entitlement, it's time the government started engaging with public sector unions and talking about giving real choices on pensions."
Trade unions are united in rejecting the prospect of the enforcement of longer working lives, and many have reasons to be miserable about the proposals to alter their sector-wide schemes. Tomorrow's day of national campaigning is just the beginning, with preparations for strike action being planned across services. If the membership voices its support, the government will be facing a public service crisis just weeks away from the anticipated general election on May 5.
A date for the start of orchestrated strike action is scheduled for March 23, with ballots at various stages of development. Amicus, Unison, the Fire Brigades Union, and the PCS are planning to join the first wave of strikes. Meanwhile, teaching unions are set to ballot for strike action two weeks later, on April 4. Until now, the government has stayed quiet.
Attempts to seek a government response over union calls to return to the drawing board and engage in meaningful consultation reveal a worrying cross-departmental resistance to take ownership of the issue, with no one knowing quite who comments on these things.
What is clear is that no mutiny is expected by MPs about their own pension schemes - not surprising, since they receive the most generous deal of all. While a nurse has to work 40 years to achieve a pension worth half her wage, high-earning politicians will have secured half of their generous salary in just 20 years. An irony not lost on the majority of weary public sector workers.
