RCN stalls on pensions deal decision after poor ballot turnout

28 February, 2012 | By Steve Ford

The Royal College of Nursing’s council has held back from rejecting the government’s latest pensions offer after a poor ballot turnout among members.

Two thirds of those that did vote in the ballot, held this month, voted to reject the deal.

However, despite urging from the college to take part in the ballot, turnout was only 16%.

As a result, the RCN’s council has for the time being chosen not to reject or accept the pension proposals on the back of the ballot result and will instead seek urgent discussions with other health unions, which are currently in the middle of similar membership consultations.

Doctors are to be balloted on industrial action short of a strike, the British Medical Association announced on Saturday. Over 80% of the 46,000 BMA members who responded to a pension survey in January said the government’s offer should be rejected.

RCN ballot papers were sent in the first week of February with the closing date Monday 27 February.

Senior college figures, including chief executive and general secretary Peter Carter and senior employment relations adviser Gerry O’Dwyer, both made videos urging members to take part.

However, 65,759 votes were cast, a turnout of 16.17% from the college’s 400,000 membership.

Of those who voted, 41,009 (62.36%) voted to reject the government’s proposals, while 24,533 members (37.30%) voted to accept the proposals.

Nursing Times understands the RCN felt it would not have a mandate to reject or accept the government’s proposals unless turnout was 20% or above.

The RCN governing council met today to discuss the “next steps” following the vote.

Council chair Kath McCourt said: ““While the members who voted expressed a clear view, showing their anger at the government proposals, we are disappointed that more of our members did not take the opportunity to vote.

“We will now, as a matter of urgency, meet with other unions who are at varying stages in their own member consultations.”

Mr Carter added: “Throughout this process, our members’ number one concern about pensions has been the prospect of working in a physically demanding job until the age of 68; which is due to take effect in 2046.

“We vehemently believe the demands of nursing mean that the same should apply to our profession and we are committed to stepping up campaigning on this issue to make the government change its mind.”

Responding to the ballot result, health secretary Andrew Lansley said: “It is disappointing that some RCN members have voted against the proposals.

“Most nurses over 45 will not be affected by any changes. Everything people have already earned will be protected and most low and middle earners working a full career will receive pension benefits at least as good, if not better, than they get now.”

He added: “But change is necessary – people are living longer, healthier lives. Today, a nurse can expect to spend nearly 33 years in retirement – around 9 years more than 30 years ago.”

Readers' comments (51)

Garry Cooper | 28-Feb-2012 5:56 pm
Another chance to unite as a profession, and show the strength of our voice, but this has failed to materialise. Is it a sign that we are disfranchised or that we do not care. I would hope neither, but this another chance that has not been used to show we are a profession to be taken seriously. As someone who voted, I find this to be disapointing, as might the others who voted!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Garry Cooper | 28-Feb-2012 6:03 pm
Another opportunity in which to unite and show the strength of our voice, and for other to recognise our resolve. The poor response has led to another disapointment as a profession, is it because we are disinfranchised or do not care. I hope neither in this case, but it saddens me that others did not use this opportunity!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 6:45 pm
Absolutely disgraceful!! There were plenty of opportunities to vote and many reminders from the RCN as the closing date approached.

Any nurse who didn't bother to vote has no right to complain about their pension package. You will now get what you deserve. A poorer pension with increased contributions and a much older retirement age. Serves you right!
Unsuitable or offensive?
irene shaw | 28-Feb-2012 6:50 pm
What is the problem with you people yes I am addressing the RCN members who have shown such apathy when asked to vote on such an important issue which will affect all members I hope you are ashamed very ashamed
Unsuitable or offensive?
irene shaw | 28-Feb-2012 6:52 pm
And yes I voted
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 7:18 pm
i found it difficult to vote as i work for the private sector and since working for this sector have come to realise what i am missing even with the revised deal i think the offer is reasonable given the fact i have to fund my own pension
Unsuitable or offensive?
tinkerbell | 28-Feb-2012 9:36 pm
Did the other 84% NOT CARE, NOT KNOW, OR THINK ITS A GOOD DEAL?

Either way good luck to you's 84%. You had your chance. I'm outta here. Goodbye.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 10:53 pm
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 7:18 pm

This is not a public v private sector issue. And this is not a good deal.

You have fallen into the trap of believing the government rhetoric. So instead of fighting for better pension conditions for private sector workers, you are under the deluded belief that public sector workers are getting a good deal, (and somehow don't deserve it). The truth is, we ALL deserve a decent pension. Remember also, that up until the last 5 years, public sector workers have been paid significantly lower than the private sector and this was off-set in some way by the promise an adequate pension (not gold-plated, and only worthwhile if you contributed over many years, without breaks of service to bring up kids, etc). David Cameron must be laughing his socks off!!

Oh yeah. United we stand....how ironic.
Unsuitable or offensive?
B R | 28-Feb-2012 10:55 pm
I am 60, work P/T now having taken my pension 18 months ago....and I voted and fought for a fair deal for all you that have a prospect of having to work until you are 67/8. If we can't show we have a voice, we may as well lay down and ask to be kicked in the teeth. The police can retire after 30 years service (in fact they have to, I believe). Perhaps that is too early (48-ish), but it is 20 years before you are going to get a chance to. Speak now or forever hold your peace, or is it too late?
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THOSE OF YOU THAT DIDN'T VOTE. Like Tinkerbell, I'm outa here and Good Luck, you are going to need it.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 11:05 pm
To all those who didn't vote hope you will be happy working when aged 68. I voted to reject the deal even though I will be going later this year at 55 there is no way I could do this at 68 not on a medical ward. Yes I will miss my salary but it is not worth the stress and the possible effect it will have on my health.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 11:20 pm
Anonymous | 28-Feb-2012 11:05 pm and others. I TOTALLY AGREE.

I too voted to reject this ridiculous deal. Those nurses who chose apathy, will pay dearly. Unfortunately so will those of us who cared enough to vote. It is sickening.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 7:35 am
I too voted to reject the deal even though I hope, (I don't trust this or any government that they will not make further cuts to us oldies), that I am one of the fortunate who should not be affected. Why do we endlessly hear moaning about the RCN from members who then don't participate in making our voice heard? Hypocritical to say the least. The RCN makes the effort to ask our opinion and it is not taken up. Sadly, I think there are lots of nurses who have no idea (even with all the publicity), that they are under threat. We are all very vulnerable in the NHS and with I think, a further recession coming we cannot be complacent now. Once gone, the pensions will NEVER be clawed back. Speak now or lose your pension for your old age. Let's face it we will need all the money we can get as there will be no social funding soon to care for us. Come on nurses, get real, get savvy and vote, NO.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 7:51 am
B R has made a valid point. Perhaps a more direct comparison between public services is in order. The Police pension is gold plated - of that there is no doubt. I personally know a Sergeant who retired on the Friday and on the following Monday was back behind his desk in his old (now civilianised) job earning a wage and getting his pension.

This is probably not the best time to say this but I take comfort in having "worn the t-shirt" but perhaps the Government should have a look at military pensions. Yes I know the risks (the t-shirt is in my bottom drawer) but forces personnel do not contribute a penny towards their pension. Again I have seen many leave the Services and walk into the civilian equivalent job (often still with MoD) and draw both a wage and pension together.

These are the anomalies that the Government should be looking at.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 8:15 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9110995/Police-pensions-unaffordable-as-taxpayer-contributions-near-2bn.html

“Police pensions 'unaffordable' as taxpayer contributions near £2bn
Police pensions are becoming ''unaffordable for taxpayers'' with contributions doubling to almost £2 billion, a report warns.”
“Taxpayers are picking up about 80 per cent of rising costs, with police retirement plans in desperate need of reform, a thinktank said.

Total costs now stand at £2.5 billion a year, the equivalent to £1 in every £7 of total police expenditure, the Policy Exchange said.

Taxpayer contributions more than doubled from £951 million in 1995-96 to £1.9 billion in recent years while police officer contributions fell from 31% to 23%, the report said.

The report recommends a move away from a final salary to a career-average scheme and a raising of the standard retirement age to 60.”

etc., etc.

maybe you can combine forces when terms and conditions for the police are changed as well?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 9:19 am
I'm lucky, I'm out of the race and drwing my pension, however looking back I can't help thinking that something has been lost along the way.

When I started my career it was in the days when unions still had real teeth, at a time before Thatcherite reforms curbed the power of the unions. At that time every hospital had it's own branch, be it RCN, COHSE, NUPE et al, before the time they all amalgamated. Every branch held regular meetings which were well attended, presided over by a branch chairman, secretary and the shop stewards who knew who their members actually were.
Motions were put forward, amended, voted on and carried or rejected. Decisions then went to a regional office and collective agreement was generally reached on a way forward through the delegates at conference and so on and so forth.
How many hospitals now have branches? how many of them hold regular branch meetings? How many of you know who your shop stewards are?

Today we seem to rely upon the Union magazine dropping through the letterbox from time to time and a ballot paper for this election or that election which to many are perceived as junk mail and binned.

Get unionism active again and on a personal level then you may find that members are more interested in what goes on instead of adopting an attitude of " the government will do what it wants anyway".

It won't if enough people show their opposition and shout loud and clear that they do not agree with their proposals.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 10:25 am
Well I voted to reject it, at 55 I am out of here asap. I cannot believe such a high number did not vote. They must be happy to work to 68!!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 2:45 pm
'Poor Turn Out'.
Says it all doesn't it?
Nurses who cannot be bothered to look after their own interests, will definitely be unsuitable for caring for the 'sick', 'aged', and/or 'dying'.

I've been writing about nurses 'unwillingness to take effective action', and using their 'voting rights' for years now.... and yet here we are .... once again, they go on failing to do the 'right and proper thing'.
No wonder, the profession is on its way out. As I've said before, you've only got yourselves to blame for underlining your persistent negativity.
Serves you right!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 4:00 pm
it seems typical human nature that everybody depended on others to turn out for them and to produce sufficient votes for a favourable outcome. Probably nobody expected the turnout to be so small. A pretext for not turning out was probably might have been they were too busy caring for patients and had other commitments, some of which, but by no means all, would have been genuine.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 8:21 pm
Can't believe there was such a poor turn out when I hear nurses complain on a daily basis about their concerns regarding the latest pension plans. I do not think the answer hear is to turn on other public sector workers such as the police or armed forces after all they, like us sacrifice a lot, sometimes more.
As someone who would like to think I would never go on strike, I am now getting to the point where I feel I would have to consider it, remembering that members of the armed forces are by law not allowed to strike. Colleagues talk about 'working to rule' but I cannot see this kind of action being taken if people couldn't even be bothered to vote.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 8:46 pm
Anonymous | 29-Feb-2012 8:21 pm

sadly mostly moaning minnies it seems. Let's not drag in the armed forces as they sometimes have to pay the ultimate price and don't have a chance to vote on decisions.

What was so hard about these nurses in the RCN popping their vote in the letter box regardless of any other commitments?

We're not 'handmaidens', really? Think the majority are if this is their best effort.

Emily Pankhurst thank you for fighting for our right to vote. Sorry you've been let down so badly.

Unsuitable or offensive?