Worse Than the Last Offer!

Scan page 16

2%, and called on other Sheffield S7 1DD.

Health L. No.8 Workers Nov '82 OVER seven months of fighting! Standing on picket lines, writing leaflets, appealing for solidarity, marching, lobbying leafleting. And suddenly the NHS anion leaders return to negotiations.

What bold, generous move prompted this change of position? Did a rumour that the government was prepared to increase its pay offer significantly circulate round !. Congress House? Did Fowler admit a sudden change of heart? Were some of Britain's lowest-paid workers about to hit the big time?

No - after a week of rumour and counter-rum- I our, lies and distortion, the new offer was unveiled. ½% extra on next year's offer of 4%!

The offer consists of a two year deal. Nurses have 1 been offered 7½% from August 23 of this year to April 1 1983, and 4½% from April '83 to April '84. in other words, exactly the same as the September offer, but with an extra ½ % next year and no back pay from April 1 to August 23.

Although a formal offer nas yet to be made to ancilltechnical and administra•Leconca 800c ive staff, it will consist of 3% this year and 42% rext year, the extra ½% reing conditional on calling iff. industrial action. It is nighly likely that this also will run from August 23.

There are five very good :easons why health workers should tell the Government what to do with this offer. I. No back pay from April 1 o August 23 i return for the measly 2% extra, we will lose nearly five months' back pay. A nursing auxiliary or first year student nurse will lose f110, a ward sister approximately £190, a cook about £100, and a domestic £75. The offer is worse than the previous one. 2. It's a two year deal. This means no mure money until 1984. We can't sell our right to extra pay in the future - what if the cost of living starts to rocket 3. The deal will mean up 15,000 job losses.

Health authorities will be expected to cough up £69 million out of existing revenue, by cutting jobs and services. That's bad for us, and bad for our patients. 4. The review body is divisive and anyway will not be binding on government the What's the point of having a review budy to look into nurses' pay if the government will refuse to implement its recommendations when not in the 'national interest' (i.e. when they reckon there's not enough money left after 'priorities' like Trident and other weapons of war). The doctors' and dentists' review body this year called for a 9% rise for these two groups, and the government only agreed to 6%. So that doesn't make for confidence in a review body for nurses.

One of the strengths of the action has been the refusal to allow nurses to separate off from other health workers. Such a review body will permanently split off the nurses. Donations Treasurer, c/o 214 Sickert Cour London N1 2SY. Cheques payable to Socialist Organiser.

MARCH& RALKY 5. Most important, it's just not enough!

We started this dispute by asking for 12%. Even the 12% would leave hospital workers close to the poverty line, and woüld not restore our real wages to the level of the early '70s. For a family living in a council house, the cost of living has risen by 16.1% in 1981 and 8% in 1982. So much for inflation disappearing! So say no to this offer! What's the alternative? Perhaps this guvernment is su hard-bitten that they'll never budge.

The truth is that they've never really been tested. One day strikes, selective action, and protests, had their uses in the beginning of the dispute, but were never likely to win the full claim.

NUPE conference voted *n unanimously for an all-out a indefinite stoppage with accident and emergency cover back in June. The leaders did nothing about it. The TUC health committee voted on October 28 for an all out strike. Tivo weeks later, they were eagerly looking for a path to selling out the dispute.

So far only ASTMS has decided to recommend rejection. NUPE has to decide next weekend, and we should insist that the executive not only calls for rejection but campaigns vigorously for the NUPE conference policy.

NALGO is likely to call a lelegate conference to lecide on the offer, and we hould support this as ipposed to a branch ballot. 'he NALGO executive has indorsed the TUC health ervice committee policy or an indefinite strike. This nust, be publicised and rgued for.

RDS SAY iverpool, and Newcastle.

The meeting also passed everal motions. One from eicester JSSC condemned he TUC health service ommittée for calling off he day of action on the 8th - especially at such a late tage. It welcomed Bickertaffe's statement that JITDI still atmod fro ther still stood for nions to make similar CoHSE has already planned a recall conference on December 14 to vote on indefinite action, and it is important that this conference is not called off. So far CoHSE has not made a recommendation for rejection. It should be pressed to do so.

The next few weeks are vital, as the TUC health service committee meets again on December 15 and the results of the consultation will be known by then. We need urgent meetings of branches and stewards' committees to organise bulletins, and joint union mass meetings to hammer home the truth about this new package and to campaign for all out action. Our national and local officials and executive members should be urged to speak at these meetings.

Stop the sell-out - reject the new offer! Prepare for an all-out strike!

'NO* statements.

Continued canvassing for all-out action was called for. At the next steering committee meeting, leaflet from Manchester will be considered for use in meetings all over the country. • Contact: Martin Robinson, u sourn view road,

----- pull-quotes -----

1.11 FOWLEK!

for the full claim JOHN HARRIS