Songs for Social Justice: Primal Scream – Come Together

Jesse Jackson’s speech at Wattstax in 1972 is sampled at the start of this song. Wattstax was a music festival organised by Stax Records on the 7^th anniversary of the Watts Riots, which lasted for five days. The root cause of the riots is still discussed today, but racism; discrimination; high unemployment; poor schools and poor living conditions for African Americans living in the Watts area of Los Angeles are regarded as being factors.

The influence of politicised popular music and culture can be heard in many of Primal Scream’s songs and interviews. In the autumn, the band condemned the Tories when they were said to have used a Primal Scream song at their party conference.

On Primal Scream’s recent 20^th anniversary tour of Screamadelica, singer Bobby Gillespie added extra lyrics to Come Together relating to the economic and political climate of today, repeating the refrain ‘Agitate, Educate, Organise’ at some of the latter shows.

Primal Scream – Come Together (Live at T in the Park):

Jesse Jackson – Wattstax:

Songs for Social Justice dance night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o      Thursday 26^th January

o      STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o      6.45pm – midnight

o      Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Songwriters and musicians support Songs for Social Justice

In previous decades, the pop charts have had an abundance of politically motivated songs which have provided a soundtrack to the everyday realities faced by young people. As part of the Songs for Social Justice, the STUC spoke to a number of artists that are renowned for their politicized songs.

Jerry Dammers is active with Love Music Hate Racism; he was a founding member of Artists Against Apartheid and was heavily involved in Rock Against Racism. He is probably best known for being the powerhouse behind The Specials and the 2Tone record label. His band The Special AKA wrote and performed ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ which reached number 9 in the singles chart in 1984.

Jerry Dammers (The Specials / The Spatial AKA Orchestra / The Special AKA / Founder of 2Tone)

“I personally would advise all musicians and artists of all ages to wake up to what is happening in the world and address it in their work. Record companies may tell artists it will damage their career, but I think in the big picture the opposite is true. If artists don’t try and address serious issues at all, we are all, including the record companies, in danger of becoming a bit redundant. Pop music at its best has always had at least a bit of a connection to the social revolution.”

In addition to the DJs and musicians performing on the 26^th of January, a number of other musicians renowned for their political music have supported the project.

Eddi Reader has also written and performed on a number of songs with a social message. Prior to singing with Fairground Attraction and embarking on a successful solo career, she was a backing singer with the post-punk band Gang of Four.

Eddi Reader

“In my experience, songs help describe hurt, loss, pain, love.  Sometimes a song will hit and soften the hardest heart even more effectively than someone shouting or debating.  I rely on song.  Patience of Angels was sung because single mothers were being demonised by the, then, Conservative Government, under John Major.  I wanted to redress that unfairness by supporting people who ended up bringing up kids alone due to circumstances and fate.  The words of that song supported me, and I hope others.”

Paul Simpson was a founding member of The Teardrop Explodes along with Julian Cope. After leaving the band, he formed The Wild Swans and released the classic ‘The Revolutionary Spirit’ in 1982. In 2011 The Wild Swans released a new album ‘The Coldest Winter for a Hundred Years’.

Paul Simpson (The Wild Swans)

“For some youngsters the lyrics in a song are of secondary importance to the music, but for me they are crucial. In 1977 I was an unemployed school leaver struggling to define myself in a difficult time of mass unemployment similar to the recession we are going through now, but through the words and music of the more politicised bands like The Clash and The Gang Of Four I discovered an alternative worldview to the one presented by my parents and the Evening News. If the words in a song are meaningless the song is rendered impotent, just aural chewing gum and as such will be valued the same and just as quickly discarded. Words can inspire, illuminate, beautify the world or spread dissent, they can be jewels or food or ammunition. Don’t undervalue or waste your words.”

In the build up to the Songs for Social Justice events, we will be publishing short blogs on popular songs that we feel are about social justice. Songs by the artists above that fit with this can be accessed at the links below:

Special AKA – Free Nelson Mandela

Eddi Reader – Patience of Angels

The Wild Swans - English Electric Lightning

Songs for Social Justice dance night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o      Thursday 26^th January

o      STUC Centre, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o      6.45pm – midnight

o      Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

STUC Unions into Schools and the Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust: Songs for Social Justice Festival

The STUC’s Unions into Schools project has worked in partnership with the Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust to organise a new piece of work on the subject of Songs for Social Justice. This work has seen schools write, perform and record songs about young people’s experience and understanding of social justice.

Later this month, the young people will come together alongside musicians and trade unionists to discuss the background to their songs and the historical and contemporary context of popular politicized music and the role that this type of music can have in raising awareness and encouraging activism.

The Songs for Social Justice project will then culminate at the STUC Centre on the evening of the 26^th of January with a DJ set headlined by Jerry Dammers and also featuring Northern Xposure, Mark Linton and Tam Coyle.

Grahame Smith, General Secretary, Scottish TUC

“Encouraging school students to write songs relevant to them on the theme of social justice is an exciting opportunity for the Scottish TUC.  For working people over the years, the arts have been a powerful means of articulating messages of protest, of hope and of demands for progressive change and a better way.  I am delighted that the STUC is helping continue this important tradition working with today’s young people.”

The Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust

 “The Alistair Hulett Memorial Trust (AHMT) is proud and delighted to be partnering the STUC Unions into Schools in the “Songs for Social Justice” Festival.  The AHMT, established in Scotland and Australia following the death of Alistair in January 2010, exists both to promote Alistair’s legacy and to advance his ideals of, and aspirations for, social justice for all.  The “New Songs for Social Justice” Festival will encourage and nurture the work of schools in considering and valuing principles of social justice through the creative medium of song, an initiative Alistair would wholeheartedly have supported.”

Sheena MacDonald, Regional Organiser, The Musicians’ Union

“There is a long history of songwriters and musicians contributing to struggles and campaigns for social justice.  Music and song has played a huge role in galvanising, sustaining and recording the struggles of ordinary people.  The Musicians’ Union is delighted to support this initiative to encourage young people to write songs about the issues of social justice which matter to them.”

Songs for Social Justice Dance Night featuring guest DJ Jerry Dammers -

o      Thursday 26^th January

o      STUC, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow

o     6.45pm – midnight

o      Tickets £8/£4 - Available direct from the STUC - 0141 337 8100

Some Songs for N30 (naked 80s nostalgia fest!)

Hardly the first person to say it I know, but it really is a crying shame that our There is a Better Way campaign lacks a decent soundtrack.  It seems popular music has become totally disconnected from lives lived and battles fought. Popular music in 2011 is a caterwauling, narcissistic freakshow.

So at the risk of coming across all fogeyish, I really do have to scream that it wasn’t always thus! The struggle against Thatcher was played out against a soundtrack of immense variety and occasional brilliance. Thought it might be fun to remind people of this as they prepare for N30.

I’ve also been desperate to write a musical list for a few weeks now - for therapeutic reasons really; to help me get over the fingernails-down-the-side-of-ship excruciating horrorshow that was Scotland’s Greatest Album.

So here we go with a mad 80s nostalgia fest. I've used a pretty liberal interpretation of 'political' here and all are from Britain and Ireland. Opening it up to the States would have been too problematic; a danger that Public Enemy would've scooped all 15 places. Still an awful lot has been missed out. In no particular order...my fave political songs of the Thatcher era:

Specials – Man at C&A

Yeah, tempted to go for something off the first LP but this track is of special sentimental value given that it was the first thing I taped after we bought a video recorder off my Dad’s winnings on the Celtic Pools. Played to death. My old boss was Terry Hall’s brother-in-law; something that cannot be said about Grahame Smith.

The Ruts – Jah War

Totally loved the Ruts and this is punk/reggae crossover at its devastating best; you can almost smell the terror invoked by an out of control Special Patrol Group. Magnificent.

Dexy’s - Dance Stance

Er, almost afraid to include this in the current climate. But it’s Dexy’s, it’s Dance Stance and it’s a song of towering brilliance. Just has to be in there. And yes I know Eugene O’Neill isn’t Irish. But a songs gotta scan...

Au Pairs – It’s Obvious

You’re in for a treat if coming across this for the first time. The sexual politics were I think lost on me at the time; too busy enjoying the signature post punk early eighties trebly guitar fest. Genuis.

The Clash – Know Your Rights

What to choose? Nearly went for personal face Charlie Don’t Surf but, having today listened to Gideon outline the next phase of his attack on workers‘ rights I thought it just had to be this. Incidentally, deeply regretting telling my eldest that by the time I was her age I'd seen the Clash at the Apollo. Further regretting my maw telling her that she didn't worry too much. You can see where this is leading #bulliedfather

Easterhouse – Whistling in the dark

‘I’m told that my homes on a nuclear free zone, that ain’t no help when there’s bills to be paid. Police accountability, non-nuclear defence strategy, it’s foolish ideology, it’s made the fight a mockery’

Excellent political songwriting, by the Mancunian band Easterhouse; not the band Scheme from Easterhouse, Glasgow (who were an interesting lot in many ways but, unfortunately their music was completely pish). A misconception that used to get me particularly riled back in ’85. And I had a temper on me back then. Their debut album, Contenders, was genuinely powerful but very few tracks appear to have found their way onto Youtube. Shame, I was looking forward to hearing Lenin in Zurich.

The Chords - Maybe Tomorrow

Even the Mods were angry back in the 1980s. One of only two bands I seen play East Kilbride as a teenager (other was Orange Juice), they were great live. By the way, for that scoot, my kids would be sleeping in the shed.

The Redskins – Lean on Me

A really, really silly band; the whole socialist (Red, geddit?) skinhead cultivated image and the SWP poster lyrics. But the tunes were fantastic and after a couple of decades of ridiculing them, I’m genuinely staggered at how amazingly fresh this sounds. Anyway, you’ve gotta love a band that releases a single called Go Get Organised!

The Style Council – A Stones Throw Away

Still remember reading the NME review of Our Favourite Shop arguing that Weller’s political voice had matured at the same time as the SC’s music. Quite. Having watched a number of horrible Occupy pepper spray and baton incidents over the past week this really does resonate.

Robert Wyatt – Shipbuilding

Had to be in there. And so it should, it’s awesome.

Everything but the Girl – Anytown

Remember feeling very sophisticated buying Eden; they had that sound. This is from the second, inferior, album but great nonetheless.

That Petrol Emotion – Big Decision

Always thought it was mightily impressive the way the Petrols scorned the Undertones legacy to make edgy, political and, in early use of sampling etc, really quite innovative music. For a band with a major contract they were overtly and heavily political, using record covers to bring attention to issues like the use of Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Brave and strong. This track is awesome.

Billy Bragg – Which Side are you on?

I know this will get me into trouble but, much as I love him as a person, could never really take to his delivery. However, remember seeing him perform this at the Apollo supporting TSC during the miners’ strike. Powerful right enough. Guess the question will be posed more than once tomorrow.

Crass – Big A Little A

A fascinating bunch. It’s incredible to think just how big they were; totally uncompromising and yet sold a stack of records – probably more than Joe McJedward sell these days. I used to correspond with guitarist Penny Rimbaud, saying things like, ‘love your records but you shouldn’t be too hard on religion ‘cause my mum and dad are religious and they’re really ok’. Amazingly, he used send me lengthy patient replies and loads of stencils to ruin good t-shirts with. I was a wee anarchist soul as a 12 year old, I really was.

Linton Kwesi Johnson – The Great Insurrection

Got into reggae through this, the Ruts and the Clash. Forever grateful Linton!

So  go on then, what have I missed?

The IMF is never wrong...really?

I blogged a while back about the rapidly growing disconnect between IMF endorsements of its member states' economic strategies and the findings of its current research; the IMF World Economic Outlook published in October 2010 had included a long and serious demolition of the Coalition's 'contractionary fiscal policy is expansionary' (cuts are good for growth and jobs!) argument but, when asked directly, IMF representatives tended to strongly back the Government. And, as we all know to our cost, any endorsement by an international institution is repeated ad nausuem by Gideon and co.

Well, the IMF has just published the latest issue of its quarterly magazine Finance and Development which contains a number of articles (precis of research papers) which are, to say the least, challenging to the coalition's worldview.

Consider 'Painful Medicine' by Daniel Leigh, Laurence Ball and Prakash Loungani which has already been helpfully summarised by Paul Krugman. Building on previous IMF research this explodes the carefully cultivated myth that fiscal contraction (cutting public spending) is good for growth and jobs. It finds that:

1) cuts are bad for incomes and jobs

2) cuts increase long-term unemployment

3) cuts hit labour much harder than capital (an aside - snipping tool, I love you)

The paper repeats an argument that the STUC has made consistently over the past couple of years and which has never received a proper response for the Michael Moores and Danny Alexanders of this world: that the various mechanisms (currency depreciation, interest rate cuts, global boom) that have allowed countries to grow and create jobs while cutting spending in the past are not available to the UK in 2010/11-

"The reduction in incomes from fiscal consolidations is even larger if central banks do not or cannot blunt some of the pain through a monetary policy stimulus. The fall in interest rates associated with monetary stimulus supports investment and consumption, and the concomitant depreciation of the currency boosts net exports. Ireland in 1987 and Finland and Italy in 1992 are examples of countries that undertook fiscal consolidations, but where large depreciations of the currency helped provide a boost to net exports.

Unfortunately, these pain relievers are not easy to come by in today’s environment. In many economies, central banks can provide only a limited monetary stimulus because policy interest rates are already near zero. Moreover, if many countries carry out fiscal austerity at the same time, the reduction in incomes in each country is likely to be greater, since not all countries can reduce the value of their currency and increase net exports at the same time".

And it doesn't stop there...this issue of F&D also includes a short piece, 'Unequal = indebted', Kumhof & Ranciere, drawing attention to the association between high levels of income inequality and high domestic and foreign indebtedness. Inequality as a proximiate cause of financial crisis is an issue the STUC has consistently raised and one these IMF economists have published on before.

Tell me, how often have you heard a UK politician talk about rising income inequality as a contributory factor in the financial crisis?

So, if you ignore the endorsements of bad policy presented for purely political reasons, the IMF is sometimes actually worth listening to. After all, they're never wrong are they?

Stephen Boyd - STUC



A sense of vindication...and fear

Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and ex-chief economist at the Cabinet Office has a masterly piece 'The coalition's confidence trick' in this week's New Statesman. I'm not providing a link because as many people as possible should buy the mag and support good journalism; I can assure you it will be money well spent. But here's a flavour...

Portes systematically rebuts the coalition's case on the timing of deficit reduction. For me, this is the key paragraph:

"...with regard to confidence and the threat of higher interest rates, and despite a very large deficit, interest rates were low and stable at the time of the 2010 election; government borrowing was as cheap as it has been for decades. There was no market panic. In the run-up to the election, senior economists in government, including me, were worried that an inconclusive result would lead to market jitters or worse. But we were wrong; even during the fraught negotiations to form the coalition, both gilt yields and the pound were remarkably stable".

The STUC has stressed this point time and time again over the past year but still the coalition sticks to the 'UK is the next Greece' scenario. Sure others have taken them on; Martin Wolf of the FT has been consistent on this and a number of international voices (Krugman, Stiglitz etc) have weighed in. But this is first piece I've seen which comprehensively links last year's big cons to Gideon's more recent claims that falling gilt yields through the summer prove markets regard the UK as a 'safe haven' due to the coalition's fiscal policy.

Portes is appropriately dismissive of this nonsense; explaining that as gilt yields fall, so do stocks and sterling - 'Low long-term interest rates reflect economic weakness and a lack of market confidence in the prospects of the Uk economy'. (He even chucks in a lovely graph of yields on UK ten-year gilts since '94 which I intend pinching with my lovely new snipping tool).

Noting that Gideon refers to his Nobel Prize winning critics as being on the 'outer fringe of the international debate', Portes concludes with the observation that 'this argument ['slower pace of consolidation combined with policies to support growth'] is neither radical nor old-fashioned Keynsianism, nor is it in anyway unorthodox. It is just standard, common-sense macroeconomics; or, just more simply, common sense'.

Yep, its Gideon who inhabits the lunatic fringe.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

5 annoying things about the Scottish Government's Corporation Tax Discussion paper

Had to get some things off my chest while I’m in the process of compiling the STUC’s comprehensive response to the Scottish Government’s discussion on corporation tax published this week. I have found the following aspects of the paper most annoying:

1       The sophistry

You say ‘introducing an attractive, competitive corporation tax policy’ ; I say ‘reducing the contribution to the common weal of currently cash rich, non-investing, often ethically dubious corporations’.

They all do it I know and in this respect the paper is no better or worse than the majority of Government consultation/discussion papers. Still annoying though.

2       The contempt for the discipline of economics & the knowledge accrued through its study over a couple of hundred years

Yes, economists have an awful lot to answer for but, y’know, economics has taught us some important stuff about the way the world works. It has not taught us that, “The key driver of economic growth in the long-run is the private sector”; a mind-bogglingly absurd sentence and perhaps the silliest ever to appear in a Government consultation paper.

One paper cited in support of the economic benefits of reducing corporation tax is described, ridiculously, as ‘seminal’. It is not. The Market for Lemons is seminal. On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets is seminal. The General Theory is seminal. Hell, it would be silly not to acknowledge that Friedman’s the Role of Monetary Policy is seminal. You might have issues with the author but it’s undeniable that the paper had a massive influence on the future development of the discipline. Lee and Gordon’s 'Tax Structure and Economic Growth' did not; it is not seminal. Why pretend that it is?

3       Asserting as fact that which is highly contentious

“Corporation tax is one of the chief levers that any government can use to promote growth, investment and jobs over the long run. It is also a vital source of competitive advantage in an integrated, flexible global economy, helping to attract new businesses, key corporate functions and highly skilled jobs”.

Is it a ‘chief lever’? Is it a ‘vital (or, more importantly, sustainable) source of competitive advantage’? Does reducing corporation tax really help to attract ‘key corporate functions and highly skilled jobs’? The paper utterly fails to provide compelling evidence in support of any of these propositions.

4       Misleading references

The rest is just annoying -  this is bad. Struggling to make sense of data attributed to the ‘World Bank’, I clicked on the lengthy non-World Bank link provided (pg 24). Lo and behold the paper referenced isn’t actually published by the World Bank at all; it’s from the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Republican economic wing-nuttery still striving to prove the Laffer Curve (gloriously described today on Twitter by Nouriel Roubini as the ‘most erroneous and laffable garbage ever hypothised’). The AEI tortures World Bank data in an effort to uniquely demonstrate that the US has the highest effective rate of corporation tax in the OECD and the Scottish Government serves this up as evidence. Incredible.

Oh how I wish I could be in the room at the next meeting of the FM’s Council of Economic Advisers when Joe Stiglitz is presented with this ‘evidence’...

5       The assumption that entrepreneurs know best about the development of economic policy

I’ll blog separately on this issue soon so I’ll keep this brief. If the Government wants advice on selling cheap sportswear then it should go to Tom Hunter. If it wants to learn about fitting exhausts it should go to Tom Farmer. If it wants to consider how sustainable economic growth might be maximised over the longer-term then, yes, it should speak to these people. But it should do so with a healthy scepticism and recognition that civic voices must also be heard. It is a demonstrable truth that entrepreneurs have a propensity and, it often appears unlimited capacity, for spouting abject nonsense about matters economic.

The words of Paul Krugman ring very true: “...economics and business are not the same subject and mastery of one does not ensure comprehension, let alone mastery, of the other. A successful business leader is no more likely to be an expert on economics than on military strategy...the next time you hear business people propounding their views about the economy, ask yourself, Have they taken the time to study this subject? Have they read what the experts write? If not, never mind how successful they have been in business. Ignore them, because they probably have no idea what they are talking about”.

Full response to the discussion paper in due course. Before departing I’ll quickly note a couple of things. First, to be fair, the paper does acknowledge that reducing corporation tax is not an economic cure all which puts it in a different bracket from the loony right think tank stuff on this subject (which makes the AEI reference all the more bizarre). Second, how Labour must regret their disgraceful, mystifying opposition to the modest Supermarket Tax proposals which conceded so much ground on ‘competitiveness’ (competitiveness? Retail? Lordy...) that credible opposition to these Corporation Tax proposals will be very difficult to achieve.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

PCS Scottish Launch “WELFARE – An Alternative vision”

All Welcome- PCS Scottish Launch “WELFARE – An Alternative vision”
Thursday 28th July (6,30pm), STUC , 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow.

PCS has taken a leading role within the trade union movement in voicing
concerns about welfare policy, and in campaigning to defend and strengthen
the welfare state.

As a union representing nearly 100,000 staff delivering welfare, PCS has an
obligation not only to our members, but to those who use it – including our
future, current and former members and their families too.

PCS members take pride in the welfare state, and they want a welfare state
that provides a decent standard of living for the retired, the unemployed and for
those unable to work, and that rewards them fairly as public servants.

Over the past 30 years the concept of welfare has been under attack. As
governments have stopped pursuing policies of full employment they have
sought to pass the blame for unemployment to the individual.

Now the government’s £18 billion welfare cuts will damage the welfare state
as a safety net that ensures a decent standard of living for those unable to work.
We have no wish to return to the welfare state of the late 1940s: it reflected the
social attitudes of its time (especially towards women and disabled people).

However, the welfare state did establish the principle of ‘social insurance’
giving people the security of knowing that if they become unemployed, ill or
disabled, and when they retire they will not be in poverty. If people need to
care for children, disabled or elderly relatives then they too should be guaranteed
a dignified income.

These principles are the hallmarks of civilised society – we need to make the
case for welfare for the 21st century. Our case is set out in a pamphlet which looks at the past, present and future of welfare and we hope it starts a new debate about the sort of welfare and society that we want.
 

JOIN IN THAT DEBATE THIS THURSDAY AT THE SCOTTISH LAUNCH OF THE VISION AT THE STUC, 333 WOODLAND ROAD, GLASGOW (6.30PM START)

Lynn Henderson - Scottish Secretary - PCS

Wick Wants Work Wins Work for Wick

Congratulations to all those involved in the Wick Wants Work Campaign   following the Government announcement that the HMRC office in Wick will remain open for another two years.

This is not only a victory for common sense but also one for effective community campaigning, in this case led by the PCS and supported by Thurso and Wick TUC .  Only last April we welcomed the Wick Wants Work Campaign to Congress and they contributed to trhe debate, along with a number of other civic organisations and partners, sharing our view for a "Better Way" , an alternative to the coalition's slash and burn approach to deficit reduction.

On the first day of Congress, in a strong contribution from Hamish Drummond from the PCS it quickly became clear to delegates just how ludicrous the coalition Government's decision to close the HMRC office in Wick was.

The Congress in Ayr provided Wick Wants Work with the chance to bring their campaign south and campaigners took every opportunity to raise the profile of what has ultimately turned out to be a shining example of trade union and community campaigning producing results and protecting jobs.

The visit allowed campaigners to engage with politicians from the UK and Scottish Governments, affiliated trade unions, other local TUCs and a number of other visitors to Congress.

We should remember that an HMRC presence in Wick is only guaranteed for two years but this provides a foundation for PCS and  Wick Wants Work to build a case for a permanent future for HMRC workers in the north of Scotland.

The STUC, working with local TUCs will continue to support campaigns to protect jobs and services in communities throughout Scotland and the success of Wick Wants Work serves as a reminder of the important role that trade unions have, not just in the workplace but also in our communities and throughout our society.

Once again congratulations to all  involved in Wick Wants Work.

Ian Tasker
STUC

A Better, Safer Way for Young Workers

Guest Blog, Laura Connor, Thompsons Solicitors

Work related ill health and injury cost the UK economy billions every year yet many employers continue to place their workers at risk by failing to meet their statutory obligations to protect their health and safety.

The CBI report that workers took 180 million sick days in 2009 with 30 million of those related to ill health and injury caused by work. The direct cost to employers of these work related incidences was £3.7 billion with an additional £31.5 billion being paid out in compensation payments to those made ill or injured by the failures of their employers.

Thompsons and the STUC have always shared the view that the majority of incidents in the workplace resulting in death, injury or ill health are easily preventable and it is incomprehensible, given the economics of health and safety failures as outlined above, that the current coalition Government is slashing the budget of the HSE by 35% over 3 years.

Young people are historically at significant risk of suffering workplace injury or being made ill by their work although recent figures published by the HSE show a significant reduction in fatal and major injuries since 2007/08.

The question that arises is how much that reduction is related to enlightened employers grasping the importance of providing health and safety training for young workers or, and this is the more likely given the recession, there are less people under 25 years of age in employment, therefore less opportunity for them to be killed injured or made ill by their work.

Employers may continue to moan about the cost of ill health and injury but for work related conditions and incidents the answer is in their own hands. It is vitally important that all workers continue to be protected in the workplace, especially young people. Far too many young lives are ruined as a result of workplace accidents and, in the worst cases, they may be extinguished and never be allowed to participate and contribute to society.

Unfortunately many young people are not aware about the legal assistance that is available through their union.

At the 71st STUC Annual STUC Youth Conference Thompsons organized an informal meeting with delegates to discuss how we could help the Youth Committee promote the importance of good health and safety awareness, provide a platform for young people to share their views on workplace health and safety and encourage young workers to raise health and safety concerns with their trade union.

From those attending it was clear delegates from all sectors - public, private and voluntary had experience from their own workplaces or sectors where they felt their employer does not support them. In one case a primary school teacher had been assaulted by a pupil in the course of her work. Unfortunately physical and verbal abuse against young workers is not uncommon as identified in research undertaken at Queen Margaret University as part of ongoing work between the Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives and the STUC.

If you have any concerns, contact your union for advice. Thompsons offer their union clients, and their members, advice on most legal issues. As a young worker, you should not feel threatened or in any way inferior to those who may be older or more experienced than you. You have the same legal rights as every other worker. Austerity is not an acceptable excuse for unfairness or breaches of health & safety laws. Make sure your voice is heard and do not accept that which is unjust.

It would be good to hear from others who have similar concerns…..




Laura Connor, Thompsons Solicitors
info@stuc.org.uk

http://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/

OBR Financial Sustainability Report: ConDems lick their lips…

On Wednesday the Office for Budget Responsibility publishes its first Financial Sustainability Report which will ‘present long term projections for public spending and tax revenue, describe the public sector balance sheet, and set out summary indicators of the long term sustainability of the public finances’.

The FT reports today that ‘after years of delay, the Government will give the first glimpse of what the UK’s public finances would look like if the UK were a listed company such as Marks and Spencer or BT’.

The consequence?

‘Counting the future liabilities of the accrued pension rights for public sector workers and the future costs of private sector finance initiative projects will inflate the apparent liabilities of the state and send the calculated assets of government deep into the red’.

Pensions alone could add between £800bn and £1200bn to the estimate of current government liabilities, depending on the discount rate chosen. PFI will account for tens of billions more. This is surely a disaster for an economy at ‘risk of becoming the next Greece’? Er, no. As the FT goes on to say:

‘Experts welcomed the new transparency but cautioned that the new liabilities shown did not represent debts that had arisen out of the blue. Future assets, such as the ability to collect tax and imprison people who refuse are not counted in the new balance sheet’.

Carl Emmerson of IFS is quoted:

‘Unlike in Greece, where a new Government uncovered significant new debts that had been brushed under the carpet, any additional liabilities shown under new accounting rules are known and discussed’.

I usually stay very well clear of the forecasting business but here’s what I think will happen on Wednesday:

The OBR report will estimate liabilities in line with FT predictions above. Ministers and their supporters will immediately claim the report as additional evidence to support austerity. They will not miss the opportunity to present the report as signalling a new era of Government transparency and more evidence of the secrecy and profligacy of their predecessors.

Although the outlook for the UK’s long-term financial sustainability will not change with publication of the report expect a frenzied reaction designed to leave the uninformed with the impression that spending cuts and pension reform (wage cuts) are unavoidable if the UK is to avoid the fate of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and now Italy.

What will be the response of the markets to the report? I think they will shrug. Of course, by the Government’s own logic, any new information confirming a significant deterioration in the public finances should provoke a negative reaction in the markets. But the markets know very well that what Carl Emmerson argues above is true and that the OBR report changes the UK’s relative fiscal position not a jot. I also think that those who consistently invoke the markets as a justification for austerity will do as they always do – ignore what the markets are actually saying today in order to focus portentously on what they might say tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the new labour market stats also published on Wednesday morning will be cherry picked and the stream of shocking economic data pointing towards very low or even negative Q2 GDP growth ignored or dismissed.
That is my prediction.

Stephen Boyd - STUC

A little masterpiece of political economy

The latest Fraser of Allander economic commentary published a fortnight ago did not make for happy reading. Its analysis confirmed the views consistently expressed by the STUC through the first half of 2011: the recovery is weak to non-existent and the headline stats do not begin to tell the full story of what is happening in the labour market. Not good.

However, a pleasant surprise awaited those who managed to stick with the commentary to the end; an outstanding article on ‘The Governance of Scotland’s Ferries’ by Professor Neil Kay, Department of Economics, Strathclyde University. This is a little masterpiece of political economy – in six short pages Prof Kay manages to catalogue the failures of policy since devolution, describe the dangers that lie ahead and propose sensible solutions rooted in a deep understanding of microeconomic analysis, EU competition law (the great bogeyman of Scottish ferry policy) and the needs of our island and peninsula communities. Marvellous stuff, if ultimately depressing in the story it tells about policy development under devolution. 

Professor Kay has been a regular commentator on ferry policy over the last decade, contributing in depth to the seemingly endless stream of Government consultations and parliamentary inquiries. His contributions (which can be found on his website http://www.brocher.com/ ) are offered as a ferry-using peninsula resident who happens to have much relevant expertise. Has Government welcomed this public spirited contribution? Not likely. Perhaps the most disillusioning moment I’ve experienced in the Scottish Parliament was to hear the term ‘academic’ being used pejoratively by Ministers against Prof Kay and other interested researchers during a debate on tendering back in 2005. Disgraceful. 

Nevertheless, Prof Kay has continued to provide valuable insights into the shambles that is ferries policy. I can’t improve on Prof Kay’s FoA article so would simply encourage people to take a look. The following quotes do not tell the full story but provide a flavour of where bad policy has left us and the nature of the dangers that lie ahead: 

“The…more dangerous scenario is that eventually Calmac loses its contract to another EU bidder. At this point, if there was a coherent regulatory framework in place as for other essential services then at least there is potential to guard against problems from moral hazard, adverse selection, opportunistic behaviour, technical or financial failure on the part of the incumbent operator. But obviously these safeguards would have to be in place before the tender process takes place, you do not start re-writing the rule book once the game has started and you are worried about who is winning, just as you do not start looking for an operator of last resort when you need them to start tomorrow”. 

..and 

“There is a debate to be had, and reasoned arguments on both sides, as to whether most of the Scottish ferry network should be run by a single state owned holding company or whether most of it should be in private hands, much of it awarded through public service contracts. There is also a debate to be had, and reasoned arguments on both sides, as to whether or not some routes should be tendered separately rather than as part of the main Calmac bundle, effectively to institutionalise cherry picking and bring in a degree of oversight by government. Indeed these very debates were encouraged in the current Scottish Ferries Review. The problem is that the debates are irrelevant, a waste of time and even counter- productive since they are not predicated on a real understanding of commercial logic and interests, let alone what EU law permits and prohibits in this context. In the absence of coherent oversight the market will provide its own solutions and one of the first lessons students learn in Economics 101 is that you cannot just rely on crossed fingers to ensure that private interest aligns with the public interest” (my emphasis). 

I’ll say it again, read the full article. 

The ferries debacle reflects some wider problems with policy development under devolution. These include: 

• The inability or unwillingness to treat issues of profound importance to Scotland’s fragile peripheral economies in a serious fashion – Prof Kay highlights the fact that Western Ferries now has an unregulated monopoly of vehicle services on Gourock-Dunoon. He asks, not unreasonably, whether the Scottish Government would let a private operator have an unregulated monopoly of tolls on the Forth Bridge?
• The extreme credulity of officials in the face of private sector companies and their lobbyists. Of course Western Ferries are motivated by the public interest. What else could possibly motivate them? 
• The selective application of microeconomic analysis – when the STUC and others sought German style wage subsidy programmes at the start of the recession, the full weight of the Government’s analytical resources is thrown at us to show that high deadweight costs render such programmes inadvisable. But when standard economics strongly suggests that a regulated state ownership is the most appropriate model, the economics are dropped. All we get are vague statements about the need to ‘test the market’ whatever that is supposed to mean. 
• Despite our devolved Parliament’s founding principles of openness, accountability, the sharing of power and equal opportunities, it still appears very, very difficult for civic minded individuals (organisations too?) to influence the policy process to any meaningful degree – no matter their level of expertise.  

That said, Prof Kay is trying once again. He currently has a petition before the Scottish Parliament which ‘calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the setting up of an independent expert group to consider and recommend institutional and regulatory options for issues relating to the provision of competitively tendered Scottish ferry services under EC law’. You can find it here. The background information contained therein is another beautifully concise summary of the failure of policy to date.
  
I do have some concerns over ‘expert groups’ and believe it is usually necessary to balance the experts with civic interests who tend to be more accomplished at seeing the bigger picture. The same goes for any future regulatory authority. But it is a good petition which deserves a fair hearing. 

As the Scottish Government's ferries review proceeds towards the completion of a ‘ferries plan’ which will help determine the structure and quality of ferry services for the next couple of decades, let’s hope that the powers that be start to listen to the Professor.

Stephen Boyd - STUC