Registered user login:

Who really holds the country to ransom?

Published 26 June 2008

Younger readers may not even know the phrase, but unions that threatened strike action were once routinely accused of "holding the public to ransom". The occasion for a recent rare outing of the cliché (by the head of the TaxPayers' Alliance) was Unison's ballot of 600,000 council workers who rejected a 2.45 per cent pay increase and could take strike action next month.

Those voting to raid the purses of the poor taxpayer included benefit staff, refuse workers, school canteen staff, teaching assistants and cleaners - some of the lowest-paid workers in the land, as Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, argues on our website this week. Higher-paid (but by no means highly paid) local authority employees such as architects, surveyors and social workers may strike, too, but as many as 250,000 of those balloted earn less than £6.50 an hour. Of these, 75 per cent are women and we can be sure that a good many of these wicked "holders to ransom" need tax credits to bring their wages up to a level deemed sufficient to live on (contrary to the pompous claim in a Financial Times leader that "public-sector pay is already high enough"). Thus, a single-parent council worker on such a pay rate, with one school-aged child and needing a couple of hours' cheap childcare a day, would at current pay levels be entitled to roughly £5,000 in Working Tax Credit a year. Does it make sense that workers employed by one arm of government are paid so poorly that they need handouts from another arm of the state simply to reach a government-set standard of living?

Of course it does not. But that hasn't stopped ministers wheeling out further old clichés of summers of discontent, wild-cat strikes and inflationary spirals (as if a 50p-per-hour improvement to the wages of refuse collectors could match the impact on inflation of escalating food and oil prices). The chasm between government rhetoric and reality could hardly be wider. We have had ministerial platitudes about the deep insecurity that rapidly rising prices visit on all workers, but nothing from the Treasury or Prime Minister on the disproportionate impact the increased cost of food and energy has on the poorest. We have had no calls for restraint to City financiers who this year have paid themselves bonuses of £13.8bn.

Hyperinflation is already a reality for most of us, whether or not council workers go on strike for a living wage: food prices are up 9 per cent from last year; domestic energy bills 10 per cent; petrol 20 per cent; and the million or so people soon coming off two-year fixed-rate mortgages will be subject to major increases in housing costs. In addition, the value of the pound has fallen by 14 per cent, increasing the cost of imports and prices in the shops. If, on top of all that, millions of workers lose purchasing power by below-inflation wage settlements, we will quickly be in a recession.

In such circumstances, is it realistic, or even morally acceptable, to call on the lowest-paid not to defend their families' living standards? There is no shortage of rich people in Britain who could exercise wage restraint. Public-sector workers cannot and, while bankers and hedge-fund speculators go unchallenged, who has the moral authority to ask them to?

Gordon Brown celebrates his year as Prime Minister with a personal rating as low as it has ever been and in a cold economic climate. We believe he can fight back and we particularly applaud that he is to make a "national crusade" of improving social mobility, which had stalled under new Labour. Public-sector workers are an important target group for such a project.

Tony Blair continued a Tory tradition of disdain for public servants such as teachers, social workers and probation officers. Brown must break with it. Fighting them will not win him votes from the middle ground, because anything he can do on that front, the Tories will always do better. George Osborne has already made it clear that his response to strike threats will be tougher trade union legislation.

For the past decade, the country has been held to ransom, with Labour's blessing, by the richest in society. That is why an appeal to those seeking only a living wage to act for the greater good sounds hollow indeed.

Myths, mischief and memory

Using astronomical clues in Homer's Odyssey, two scientists have pinned down the exact date when Odysseus returned to Ithaca and, under cover of darkness, slaughtered the suitors who had been bothering his wife, Penelope, during his long absence. The total solar eclipse that helped Odysseus despatch his rivals, say Marcelo Magnasco of the Rockefeller University in New York and Constantino Baikouzis of the La Plata Astronomical Observatory in Argentina, took place on 16 April 1178 BC, just before lunchtime.

"If we take it that the deaths of the suitors happened on this particular eclipse date . . . everything else described in the Odyssey happens exactly as is described," says Magnasco. If he over-eggs the veracity of Homer's account slightly, the discovery still supports those who believe our treasured myths and legends are too good to be mere fairy tales; that the facts on which they are based must be out there, somewhere.

How heartening if excavations at King Alfred's private lodgings in Winchester unearthed recipes suggesting that, even if he didn't burn the cakes, Alfred was at least fond of cooking them. Or if humanoid implements found lodged in the columns of the Giant's Causeway pointed to the presence of ancient Irish builders.

Let no one suggest that Loki, the Norse god of mischief, is at work here. Myths are a storehouse of mankind's memory. Rejoice if these delightful stories prove more truthful than we could ever have imagined.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

Derek Bennett
26 June 2008 at 15:55

Who really holds the country to ransom? Why, the EU of course - it's fully in control of us.

alfwaterson
01 July 2008 at 17:16

Full employment, Gordon? You try to make ends meet on little over £ 200 per week.

It seems to me that there is something morally wrong with a society that allows certain of its members to work what today is considered a full working week and yet is happy to pay them less than what is necessary to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Straight away one can feel the businessmen’s hackles rise and one can hear them saying, “Yes, but it depends what you think is a full working week, what living standard is deemed reasonable, how much do you think we can afford?”

Casting an eye over the situations vacant in the local Bradford newspaper reveals a good many jobs advertised at £12k-£15k per annum, which, assuming a 40 hour week, 46 week year, would equate to an hourly rate of between £7.06 and £8.15 per hour. Not exactly a fortune, one might think, considering over an hour’s pay might be spent per day parking the car while at work, or on public transport actually getting there and desperately under the £450 stated by a recent BBC report as being the average weekly wage in the UK.

Yet many families have to make ends meet on sums such as this and even less.

Anyone who has had the misfortune to have had to visit the Jobcentreplus or peruse its website will find countless jobs in this category. The sort that require hardworking enthusiastic, conscientious, ambitious self starters, bounding with energy and commitment and possessing of qualifications and their own means of transport, yet want to pay a pittance. There is always something mean, cynical and stingy about a job description that has to add that the salary it offers meets the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage starts at £3.30 per hour and rises to £5.35 for persons over 22 (£6072-£9844 per annum) Try making ends meet at this level. Ever rising bills for utilities, mortgages, food, clothing and transport still have to be met.

There is no discount for being poor.

And one can hear the hawks protesting. The reference to Jobcentreplus is anecdotal, a fictitious description put together to illustrate a point? Wage rates should be free to settle at the market determined rate, the greater the demand for a job, the lower the rate as workers fight for employment? The benefits system pulls the low paid up to a higher level with generous additions?

Well, the answer is “not so” to all three such remarks.

The following is an extract from a live Jobcentreplus “opportunity”.

“We currently have a one month contract for microbiologist in Bradford. With a BSc Microbiology/Biomedical science or related subject, the successful applicant will be familiar with microbiological techniques including media preparation, streak plates, aseptic technique, ID’s, and will be willing to take part in the shift system which the laboratory operates.” Wage £ 6.23 per hour.

With respect to a free market in labour rates, such thinking would inevitably result in the institutionalised slavery of the nineteenth century where an, “If you don’t like it then there are another couple of dozen willing to work for less than you” mentality was the norm. But isn’t the next step on this free market road to reinstall the workhouse? Anyone with any conscience would not wish to pay someone less than the rate for which they would perform the task, lest one day they might have to do so. But more importantly, this economic model inevitably leads to neglect, exploitation and manipulation of the worse kind. Workers are treated with contempt, not only financially but in critical areas such as health and safety as the lowest cost bidder wins. Not so? A recent case in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus tells the story of an immigrant construction worker being hit over the head by a falling lintel, leaving him critically ill. The site manager, when finally identified, claimed he was properly mindful of H&S, despite it being obvious that even basic considerations were left to chance. Cases like the drowning of Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe Bay need no further explanation, such is the scale of their tragedy, yet this trade still goes on, if reports post dating the hideous event are to be believed.

Finally, the benefits system. Overstretched? Possibly. Abused? Probably. Necessary? On the evidence above, undoubtedly. The finest achievement of the post war Labour government, one can argue, was the welfare system it installed to protect the poorer members of society. The mark of any civilised society is the way it treats its poor and disadvantaged and one would hope that the money paid out to beneficiaries is going to just cases. But even if this is not one hundred per cent the case, one cannot, as some would want, dismantle the safety net in order to mop up a proportion of fraudsters. It is highly likely that the proportion of claims that are in any way fraudulent are far outweighed by those claims that would be legitimate and are never made. And, of course, weighed against the disgraceful amounts that the rich and privileged are able to avoid by living offshore and exploiting other such fiscal loopholes, for example, it pales into insignificance. By all means, have as robust a system as possible to track down and defeat the benefit cheats, but a little balance would not go amiss.

But all this misses the point to some extent. Why should the state have to intervene to top up the hideously low wages that some people, mainly invisible, in jobs that are necessary but undervalued and overlooked, are paid by exploitative employers? Picking litter up on the street, emptying bins or ensuring the hospital wards are clean and free from germs might not require an Oxbridge First, but listen to the Oxbridge Firsts bleat when their dustbins are overflowing, their trains are late or fail to arrive, or their lattes or mochas are cold. These invisible people really are the ones that keep our society ticking over. If they don’t function, the rest can’t function. So why, when it comes to being paid, are they always on the wrong end of a bad deal? Alright, one might say, you cannot justify that they are paid the same as a highly qualified engineer or scientist or surgeon. Maybe not. But that is not what the argument is about. But were it the case would all these highly educated and talented people throw down their calculators, microscopes and scalpels and seek work down at the local incinerator, café or tube station? Highly unlikely. They do what they do because they are interested in the work, it pays well and they have the mental capacity to do so. The argument is about being paid a living wage for a week’s work, which has nothing to do with parity with the elite.

The incomes gap has grown larger under a Labour government and is a legacy that Tony Blair should be heartily ashamed of. One cannot imagine Gordon Brown turning that tide. The Trades Unions, although they might like to think otherwise, are a spent force in all but a few situations. The gulf between the “haves” and the “have nots” continues to widen causing unrest, unease and resentment in British society, which manifests itself in many anti-social ways. One step along the way to tackling this is to ensure fairness in the wages paid in the workplace. This, above all else, will result in a reduction in the number of people claiming benefits and the dependency culture it engenders and will promote a feeling of self worth and contribute towards the nation feeling at ease with itself.

In the meantime, all you microbiologists form an orderly queue. There’s big money to be made in Bradford.

Carl Jones
02 July 2008 at 11:42

I agree with the above comment. I find it amazing that the unions having only recently started taking strike action. We`ve had years of under reported inflation, its been over 6% for years....call me cynical (I am), but this late action by unions smacks of a elite agenda designed to get the public backs up....time for belt tightening.....we mustn`t stoke the inflation fires....all utter rubbish.

It amazes me that the public aren`t rioting and burning the NWO City temples to the ground....maybe I`m missing something, maybe Freemason membership is far greater than I ever expected.

peter.tazzyclarke
02 July 2008 at 19:41

Peter Clarke

How things are kept quiet, IE reading teletext it was posted that Prince Charles had a wage increase of 7% and as stated it increased his wages to an extra £1.000.000 YES 1 million pounds. How many years would we have to work for this? This comes out of our taxes and so do many other hidden benefits that contribute to the FAT CATS wages. When inflation is talked about, I cringe as 5% on rates 3% on housing tax 7% on electric 10% on gas 4% on food, this is just an example but to me this adds up to 29% Also a manager earning £50.000 a year would accept a 2% pay rise as this adds a nice £1.000. It's time we all stand together and get the just rewards we deserve as we have given so much over the years, now let all Unions unite.

Ron McKeown
04 July 2008 at 20:36

Why is it always assumed that the “bosses” should provide work and high wages all the time. If the unions are so good why are they not “bosses” supplying the work and cash? We have sunk into a society littered with people that always demand that “others” supply jobs and benefits. If anyone is dissatisfied with their lot then they should put in the effort to change it - not expect “others” to do it for them. Stop moaning and get on with it

Carl Jones
06 July 2008 at 00:22

Ron; you are in the dark ages....bosses provide nothing.....bosses report to investors, share holders, fund managers and banks (they are bust. lol). Bosses have to deal with SIS infected unions and all of this is based on fudged economic statistics, such as undereported inflaion which keeps pay very low.

I find it amazing that with all the technological advances in computers and communications, ordinary people are no better off.....is this a calculated NWO construct?? LOL

fairplay
06 July 2008 at 07:26

we are worse off and it aint getting any better.

we may have more "stuff" in our homes and our standard of living may be rated better than ever but what about our quality of life?

ie job satisfaction, happiness around the home, less stress in life, better recreational facilities, high moral standards, good education etc etc

its all gone to pot. we are consumed by greed and unfortunately the architects of the current situation are the ones who walk off into the distance unpunished with all the f&*+ing money!!!!!

Thisisme
09 July 2008 at 16:33

As alfwaterson points out 'one might say, you cannot justify that they are paid the same as a highly qualified engineer or scientist or surgeon. Maybe not. But that is not what the argument is about.' but how can you justify 'City financiers who this year have paid themselves bonuses of £13.8bn.' ?

Their jobs are much less use than sugeons, engineers, biologist, cleaners, dustbinmen and many, many other jobs! If poeple's wages related to how useful their employment was to society City financiers would surly be on the lowest wages?

john problem
10 July 2008 at 09:41

It's about time the old age pensioners held the nation to ransom. Imagine the millions who could fill London with placards demanding a rise on their pitiful £90.70 a week! Shuffling along, peering at the youthful policemen, croaking out 'Down with Brown' and 'Free Teeth for All!' And then wobbling along to the City where their howls of 'Where's my Bonus?' would deafen the hedgies in their sequestered offices, the bankers in their collonaded board-rooms.

And then back home for a nice cup of tea. As a septuagenarian I am sitting down now, organising it.

anglicus
10 July 2008 at 11:20

I'm with you john problem, where do we all meet up.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?