"Not low paid?"

Scan page 3

Where you've got Labour councils it has caused quite a lot of problems. They argue that they are doing as much as they can and we're putting the boot in. They are trying to divide the rest of the NALGO branch against us. People get caught up with the argument that you can't criticise a Labour council because after all they are better than the Tories. But often they aren't and our council certainly hasn't been.

Councillors have been trying to persuade people not to go on strike, threatening closure of homes and suspensions without pay. They've been going back on agreements and letting management get away with making these threats and calling police to peaceful picket lines, so to us they appear like Tories. NORWOOD CLP last week considered a motion which would cut the ground from under the Labour council's union-bashing opposition to the Residential Workers' parity claim.

The motion was in two parts:

1) Expressing support for the claim;

2) Calling on the council to open local negotiations on the claim.

Speakers for the motion described the longer basic working week of residential workers than other council workers. This basic week includes irregular and unsocial hours, weekend and bank holiday working, all paid at the basic rate, while compulsory sleep-ins (8 hours on-call) are recompensed at $6.32.

A Lambeth residential worker and Labour Party member described the strain of working such hours as well as the problems of the job itself. This leads to frequent sickness, high staff turnover and vacancy rates (30% in Lambeth) and frequent overtime, paid at the basic rate.

The pay-slip of a residential worker revealed a take-home salary of £90 per week (including extra pay for sleep-ins).

In spite of this, Comrade Ted Knight claimed that residential workers were not low paid.

Arguments against were of three types. Either the claim was too expensive, or NAIGO shouldn't be pressing for local pegotiations as this would leave workers in Tory boroughs out on a limb, or NALGO should negotiate with the 11 Labour boroughs in the Association of London Authorities.

The argument against local negotiations would also apply to negotiations with the ALLA, though comrade Knight did not seem to understand this. In fact, local settlements could free resources for supporting and spreading the battle against the Tory boroughs as well as encouraging workers in such areas.

The first argument, about expense, is the most bankrupt of all. By this, comrade Knight is arguing that residential workers should continue to subsidise Lambeth's failure to fight the government by working cut-price.

NON: