Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

Ignore the media scare-stories about strikes

Those who strike are not firebrands or ideologues, they are ordinary men and women who are fighting

By Steven Baxter Published 23 June 2011 13:34

As public sector workers prepare for strike action, the media narratives have already been prepared. Today's Daily Mail has a tale headlined "STRIKE LEADER'S HUGE PAY RISE" and it won't be the last. The pay and pensions of union leaders will come under scrutiny like never before as the usual suspects prepare to demonise organised workforces, and their right to protest against changes to their pay and conditions. Look at the union bosses and see their greed!

The phrase "gold-plated pensions" will be wheeled out time and time again, without ever daring to represent quite how un-precious public sector settlements really are for the vast majority of people. Strikers will be portrayed as betrayers of the children whose education they deny, in the case of teachers; as greedy, money-loving fatcats not living in the real world, pumped full of entitlement and "our money" thanks to years of racketeering from their New Labour chums, in the case of everyone else. It won't be true - of course it's not true - but that won't make any difference.

The stories are already as good as written. All the 1970s imagery, of binbags in the street and bodies left unburied, will be dragged up, whether it's relevant or not. There's no avoiding that, I am afraid. There was a time when newspapers had industrial correspondents who dealt with these matters in a reasonably even-handed way, but that is increasingly not the case. Now, the narratives do not come from the unions, or their members, but the politicians who fight them, and the corporate media in whose interests it is to demonise organised labour and workers' demands.

The anti-striker and anti-union stories will tap into a powerful, emotional sense that somehow this isn't fair. We are suffering in the private sector, so they must suffer too. Spread around the suffering. Make everyone hurt, so it's fair. We've got terrible pay and conditions, and we don't bother to do anything about it; so why should these people, who have bothered to do something about it, get better treatment? Our apathy deserves to be rewarded; we've been "good" employees and haven't made a fuss, yet we've been passed over. It's not fair.

Faced with an inevitable slew of stories about trade union leaders' salaries, opinion pieces about the selfishness of striking and articles about the righteousness of bashing the public sector, what kind of strategy could see the unions and their members win over public opinion? Is striking a trap that will play into the hands of the coalition government and give them the hate-figures they need to deflect attention from who is really causing economic problems? Are unions and their members making themselves the coalition's scapegoat?

It's a difficult decision, to take action when you know that you are going to be misrepresented; to battle against something which is described, again and again, as being the only possible option. But it all depends on how the motivation of strikers, and public-sector workers, is seen. Time and again, all they can do is to explain what has happened over the past few years - not just under this government - and why they are fighting: not to cause disruption, not out of political mischief-making, but because it is the right thing to do and the right time to do it.

All I know, from a personal point of view, is that I've spoken to a lot of public-sector workers and activists recently as part of other stories I've been writing. Time and again, I have got the impression that these are not firebrands or ideologues pushing a political agenda that comes from the top or from their leaders; these are ordinary men and women who are fighting for their futures, fighting for their families, because they believe that there is no other way, because they feel that things have gone so far that they simply cannot do nothing, or accept the axe, or roll over and die. These are not the facemasked anarchists chucking bricks in protests; these are hardworking parents seeing a bleak future for their children, and wanting to do something now to make a change for the better, to stop something that will change the country forever.

They will not be depicted that way, and they know it. But they will fight anyway, and fight to get their message across.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: gold-plated pensions strike

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Thu, 2011-06-23 20:17 — Luddite (not verified)

It's going to be spot the striking worker. These strikes aren't about protecting the exploited and downtrodden, it's all about protecting privileged and over generous gold-plated government pension schemes. Pension schemes workers in the wealth creating part of the economy can only dream about, after they retire at 66. with a crap state pensions.

Thu, 2011-10-20 06:07 — Taggart

The economy needs to be retrenched, government cut back to avoid us being down graded by the IMF. When you are broke, you cant just keep spending. As Milton Friedman, the economist, said, spending other people's money on other people leads to the most irresponsible of spending. We are all in this together, but the Unions want to say that some of us are more in it together than others. http://www.yourcareerguide.org

Thu, 2011-06-23 23:23 — Clive Nutton (not verified)

Wealth creating for who? Oh yes. Wealth creating for those who already have it and presided over the recent crisis. A genuinely educated population isn't in their interests and nor is the modest remuneration of those professionals that provide it. However, less of my sarcasm. In a knowledge economy that develops on the back of our collective industry and creativity, genuine education is wealth creating. This government is destroying it as surely as a toddler would would a butterfly. Through clumsy ignorance.

Fri, 2011-06-24 09:16 — mcquade

"Striking was meant to be a way that the most downtrodden of workers"

Matt T, hogwash. Try reading union constitutions. I don't know why deeply thick people like you even bother wasting your time commenting. You just make yourself look even thicker than I'm sure you mean to.

Fri, 2011-06-24 09:51 — Des Demona (not verified)

@Luddite
'Gold Plated pension schemes.'

Do you actually know any teachers or nurses? Have you asked them about the level of their 'gold plated pensions?

As I presume you are a tOry have you written to David Cameron asking why the pension arrangements for MP's remains untouched?

Fri, 2011-06-24 10:01 — Matt T (not verified)

@ Gold Plated Chain

"Before the recession, our debts were tiny by our own historical standards and our deficit was piddling."

That's odd, because I distinctly remember, as GB crowed about the end of boom and bust during the good years, scores of comentators asking, with more easperation as each budget passed, why our national debt was growing and growing. The day that Labour stopped being 'tax and spend', and became 'don't tax but spend anyway', was the day that we were set up for this fall.

Sat, 2011-06-25 11:28 — Luddite (not verified)

Des Demona who's taking about teachers, nurses, council gardeners and bin men. I'am talking about doctor's consultants, and senior council managers plus MPs and no i'am not a tory, i just wish to see fairness in the pension system.

Sat, 2011-06-25 11:58 — martybee (not verified)

Is the government changing the rules for workers in the private sector, with private pensions so that they can not benefit from them until they reach state retirement age??...if they want to drag everyone down to the lowest level then they should.

Fri, 2011-06-24 13:37 — MR (not verified)

This is how the Labour government spent £1.3trillion Bills included £50million to promote ballet and music, £5.6million for pensions for the Royal Household and £38.4million for gipsy encampments.

The Lbour govt were responsible for regulating the banks and for an ill thought out foreign war in Iraq.
ecks why, at the risk of calling you master of the bleeding obvious, everybody knows that economists disagree, but his analogy makes light of why socialists overspend - it makes them popular. I am also well aware that the IMF are not a ratings agency but they do rate and grade growth forecasts for the UK. They have down graded growth forecasts this year because when you have as much debt as we do we dont look like a great place for investors. Niall Ferguson prof of history at Harvard claims that the Labour government left us with a debt rate that was 70% of GDP. And dont forget the outgoing minister who left a message for the Tories - Sorry there's no money left. Not so funny any more is it!

Thu, 2011-06-23 14:03 — la potenza della speranza (not verified)

Spot on that man!

Thu, 2011-06-23 14:18 — Lou (not verified)

Thanks Steven, great piece.

You don't have to be in a union to support the strike, anyone is welcome to join the picket lines and protest this Govt and their cuts.

Thu, 2011-06-23 14:43 — ang (not verified)

@Steven.
Great stuff.
We need more people to defend the unions, when they are striking to protect public services and their workers, against an uttely ruthless bunch of lying Toffs.
Mark Serwotka should be given more airtime, he's passionate, articulate, intelligent and the Tories must hate him.

Thu, 2011-06-23 15:35 — MR (not verified)

Correct me if I am wrong but arent we, as a country, massively in debt after 10 years or so of a Labour spending spree? It would take 2000 years of throwing £50 notes out of the window to pay off the national debt according to some reports. The economy needs to be retrenched, government cut back to avoid us being down graded by the IMF. When you are broke, you cant just keep spending. As Milton Friedman, the economist, said, spending other people's money on other people leads to the most irresponsible of spending. We are all in this together, but the Unions want to say that some of us are more in it together than others.

Mon, 2011-06-27 16:52 — Des Demona (not verified)

Did you see that little prat Gove on the Andrew Marr show? His only arguments were 'people will lose respect for teachers if they strike' and 'people will call for tough legislation to prevent teachers striking because it is inconvenient for families who might have to organise childcare'

Is that the best he's got? Seriously?

Wed, 2011-06-29 10:54 — Luddite (not verified)

Des Demona. Labour did nothing to stop the bankers bringing the country to its knees and because of that the public finances are in a catastrophic state. Under Labour the public sector grew out of all proportion to the nation's abilities to sustain it, something needs to give, even after the reform of the public sector pensions many will still retain a far more generous retirement package then most. It's just not unacceptable for one worker to retire at 66 with a much reduced pension and another retire early with a more generous one. What ever happened to equally or in your world are some more equal than others.

Mon, 2011-06-27 16:59 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Luddite
'Des Demona who's taking about teachers, nurses, council gardeners and bin men. I'am talking about doctor's consultants, and senior council managers plus MPs''

Who make up a tiny percentage of those involved.

Reminds me of another quote from that prat Gove. 'You don't see NHS Consultants coming out on strike''

Of course you don't you idiot. They don't have to worry about how to pay the electric bill.

This is about the hundreds of thousands (if not millions)of workers who are getting bitch slapped while the bankers still pay themselves millions a year.

Thu, 2011-06-23 16:42 — Matt T (not verified)

Striking was meant to be a way that the most downtrodden of workers, who had no other voice, could make themselves heard. The sight of middle class professionals like teachers going on strike is nauseating, they are doing it simply to protect a cushy number and as a country we should not accept it.

Thu, 2011-06-23 17:04 — ecks why (not verified)

@MR

Yep, you're wrong. Subtract the financial bailout and Labour left the deficit lower than John Major did. Furthermore, the IMF isn't a ratings agency, and the ratings agencies aren't going to downgrade the world's 6th largest economy. Also, plenty of economists disagree with Friedman, so you (and the government) wouldd be wise not to take his personal view of things as gospel.

Thu, 2011-06-23 17:13 — xerode (not verified)

@MR: Milton Friedman said a lot of things and his neoliberal policies are one of the reasons we're in such a mess at the moment. It's best not to listen to anything he said, really.

Thu, 2011-06-23 17:14 — Goldie-plated Chain (not verified)

"Correct me if I am wrong but arent we, as a country, massively in debt after 10 years or so of a Labour spending spree?"

I'm correcting you, you are wrong.

We're in debt because of a recession - a recession that was caused by bankers and politicians, not by teachers or nurses. Before the recession, our debts were tiny by our own historical standards and our deficit was piddling. The current debt is larger, but manageable - a lot of it doesn't have to be paid off for years and the interest on it is essentially less than inflation. What the government is presenting to us as the only option is, to use their favoured 'economy as household' analogy, the equivalent of selling your car, furniture and TV and living on nothing but bread and water for 5 years so that you can pay your mortgage off more quickly than you have to. Nobody in the real world does that.

The cuts are being made for ideological reasons.

The Civil Service Pension Scheme is projected to cost less, as a proportion of GDP, every year from now until 2050. This fact is there, in black and white, in the Hutton Report. How something that is continually getting cheaper can be unaffordable, I don't know.

The cuts are being made for ideological reasons.

Sun, 2011-06-26 10:40 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Unions strike to protect their members. They do not strike for the poor. Their members are not the poor. That may have been true once but it is not true now. teachers and nurses are well-paid, well above the national average, and they are pretty well unsackable. If I were them I would certainly strike. Why not? I lose nothing and I might gain if Cameron actually backs down. But as for the poor, what would I have to do with htem?