UNITE Convenors at Ellesmere Port Vauxhall Plant

18 May 2012

The Ellesmere Port deal has saved thousands of jobs and created thousands more, but it came at a cost.

The deal struck by workers and their employer at the General Motors plant in Ellesmere Port this week has been welcomed as a triumph of UK industry both by unions and the government. Indeed, the preservation of thousands of jobs and the promised creation of thousands more is without doubt a cause for celebration - but let’s not forget that continued employment at the site may have come at a cost to GM workers, and potentially to the broader employment rights landscape both here and abroad.

Worker ‘flexibility’

As many as 94% of Unite the Union members agreed to compromise on pay and conditions for two years as part of a four year deal to keep the factory in operation. The willingness of workers to accept such a deal is understandable, given that they were at serious risk of losing their jobs completely under plans by GM to shut the plant down.

However, this deal also exposes the fact that the onus for keeping Britain competitive in the global market – an aim often proudly held aloft by the coalition – is falling on workers rather than wealthy multinationals like GM.

The same people struggling against rising energy prices, soaring rents and frozen wages are being asked to make even more sacrifices. This is what the government calls being ‘flexible’. Indeed, politicians including David Cameron and Business Secretary Vince Cable have praised the Ellesmere Port deal, extolling the virtues of “worker flexibility” at a company that last year reported record annual profits. It would be nice if Cameron and Cable could also encourage “company flexibility” by asking GM to make sacrifices by subsidising its European division (the Opel/Vauxhall sites) which reported record losses for 2011.

A stick with which to beat the public sector

One immediate problem stemming from the deal has been its use by politicians to threaten public sector workers, who are fighting spending cuts that will see them working longer and for lower pay. The “flexibility” of the Ellesmere Port workers – who were simply backed into a corner – is being used against unions trying to protect the rights of state employees.

Workers are being played against each other, asked to lower their expectations to ‘be competitive’ and forced to shoulder the nation’s debt. Meanwhile, businesses are being given increased powers to rid themselves of “burdensome” safety protocol and staff, with a consultation currently investigating the possibility of allowing microbusinesses to dismiss workers without good reason and remove the right of their employees to take them to an employment tribunal for doing so.