Clear as Mud
What a dull and dreary speech Dave Prentis delivered yesterday - to Unison's annual delegate conference in Manchester.
Now the speech received plenty of coverage for sure - because the rhetoric is being ramped up - with all this talk of 'the mother of all strikes.
But we learned nothing new about the union's key objectives - or what it most wants to change in terms of the government's plans for pension reform.
Will Unison die in a ditch - for example - to retain 'final salary' pension schemes?
Because if so - it does nothing for the majority of ordinary, low paid union members.
If a final salary scheme is the key issue - then it's the better paid members who should be charging the barbed wire - and following their union generals into battle.
Is it the increase in pension contributions that that's the sticking point?
Who knows, but my brother's over here from Canada at the moment - he's a transport worker and nearly 10% of his earnings go into his pension pot - every year.
In other words he pays more - but receives more generous pension benefits in return for his higher contributions.
Is it the increase in retirement age that the unions can't swallow?
Who knows - but there are differential retirement ages just now - not all workers are equal.
Civil servants and MPs - for example - enjoy better arrangements than just about everyone else.
So before the unions light the blue touch paper - they should decide what they're asking the members to fight for - because at the moment's it's about as clear as mud.
Now the speech received plenty of coverage for sure - because the rhetoric is being ramped up - with all this talk of 'the mother of all strikes.
But we learned nothing new about the union's key objectives - or what it most wants to change in terms of the government's plans for pension reform.
Will Unison die in a ditch - for example - to retain 'final salary' pension schemes?
Because if so - it does nothing for the majority of ordinary, low paid union members.
If a final salary scheme is the key issue - then it's the better paid members who should be charging the barbed wire - and following their union generals into battle.
Is it the increase in pension contributions that that's the sticking point?
Who knows, but my brother's over here from Canada at the moment - he's a transport worker and nearly 10% of his earnings go into his pension pot - every year.
In other words he pays more - but receives more generous pension benefits in return for his higher contributions.
Is it the increase in retirement age that the unions can't swallow?
Who knows - but there are differential retirement ages just now - not all workers are equal.
Civil servants and MPs - for example - enjoy better arrangements than just about everyone else.
So before the unions light the blue touch paper - they should decide what they're asking the members to fight for - because at the moment's it's about as clear as mud.
