Comment: Union talks really are a sham
Millions of people affected by this Thursday's strikes should be under no illusions: there was never any chance of these talks resulting in a deal.
By Alex Stevenson Follow @alex__stevenson
Perhaps you're a parent, hoping to send your child to school as usual on Thursday. Perhaps your headteacher will be forced into the decision that, because so many of his or her staff are members of the National Union of Students (NUT) or the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), your school is going to have to close. Perhaps you're going to have to make horrendously last-minute childcare arrangements, whatever they might be. You won't be alone.
The inconvenience of this situation would be much easier to bear, believe me, if you stop reading now.
It would be much easier for you to continue hoping last-ditch talks will persuade the unions, or the government, to give enough ground to put off the strikes.
It would be less distressing for you to be able to cling to the hope that David Cameron's speech later today might sway the union leaders to change their minds.
It would probably be comforting for you to reflect that, after all, the unions have been forced into this walkout because they have no other options on the table.
Unfortunately, none of this is really true.
It's actually rather fanciful. It certainly doesn't reflect the coldly calculated reality of the standoff between ministers and general secretaries.
Throughout June, the gulf between the two sides has been so vast that the chances of any kind of meaningful agreement have always been close to zero.
Unions want the government to give up the shift in the indexing of public sector pensions from retail price index to consumer price index, which is always lower.
They're also unhappy with the increase in the retirement age to 66, even though that's in line with the increase in the state retirement age, and the large hike in contributions needed even to make that settlement affordable.
They want all these changes scrapped. But ministers had made up their minds months ago.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers, who are ruthlessly united in their pursuit of deficit reduction, tried to use ex-Labour pensions secretary John Hutton as cover to justify the need for change. By getting him to put forward the proposals, the issue – which has to be tackled somehow, as the current position is unsustainable – would become depoliticised.
Unions have simply chosen to ignore that play. Just as ministers had already made their minds long before Hutton's final report was published, so they had already decided to strike.
You might wonder why they're even bothering with the talks. The answer is that, despite the divide, there is always progress to be made when it comes to the nitty-gritty.
In yesterday's talks, for example, unions claimed a victory over local government pensions. Unions claimed ministers had admitted the problems there were not "fully understood". Ministers acknowledged there were "important implications" for the way benefits and pension contributions interact. A more in-depth discussion has been agreed to, usefully.
These small-scale details will be little comfort to those who have much worse Thursdays as a result of the unions' action.
But there's further bad news, I'm afraid.
Teaching unions voted for "discontinuous action". That means they can have as many one-day strikes as they like without needing to ballot again.
Given that Unite, one of the largest public sector unions, isn't even involved in the June 30th strike – but is prepared to strike if further progress is not made – the threat of further walkouts is very, very real.
July, not June, will be the real test of the two sides' resolve. What we've seen so far has just been the initial manoeuvrings of a much bigger, much longer campaign.
That's an unfortunate truth which, if you hadn't realised it yet, could make your ruined Thursday even worse still.
Have a nice day.
