Despite Francis Maude's weasel words, the Tories would almost certainly have attacked civil service redundancy terms anywayThe logic of claiming, as Daniel Calder does, that Francis Maude would not have had to trump the previous government's cuts to civil service redundancy were it not for me, is hard to follow.
The argument seems to go that my union, the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), is at fault for proving twice in the high court that it was unlawful for the government to rip up the contracts of its staff without their agreement.
The ruling means the government should not have imposed the changes. But, under the cover of demonising PCS for successfully defending its members' interests in court, this is precisely what Maude's coalition now plans to do.
The government is unique as an employer – no other boss would be able to make new laws simply because the existing ones make it impossible to impose its will on its staff. But the article appears to suggest that this is an acceptable way to conduct industrial relations. Well, I find the idea of that utterly abhorrent and, in fact, it makes having strong unions in the civil service doubly important.
So the real question is, why are the Tories' proposals so much worse than the previous government's if Maude truly believes that his actions "might not have been necessary" were it not for our court victory?
The weasel word gives it away. It only "might" not have been necessary. But given the Tories have long said civil service redundancy terms should be brought more into line with the private sector, it is almost a certainty that they would have done this anyway.
Yes, the Tories' plans are an absolute disgrace. But if cuts to contractual rights are wrong under the Tories, they were wrong under Labour.
I accept there is some anger out there, but let us turn it into opposition against this coalition government, which has wasted no time in setting about realising an ideological ambition of the old Tory right to dismantle the welfare state piece by piece. This time, however, it is not doing it from the position of strength enjoyed by previous Tory governments. It is being held in power with the supine support of the Liberal Democrats, who once opposed many of the measures they now apparently believe are necessary.
To help it in its task, this "fair and progressive" coalition intends to rip up the contracts of its workforce and use its privileged position as legislator and executive to force staff to bend to its will. PCS, as a union, says quite simply and logically that it shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
