Local government pay: who’s most to ‘blame’ for this year’s pay deal?

Social workers are most likely to hold the government responsible for the 2024-25 pay settlement, a Community Care poll has found.

This year’s local government pay deal was finalised in October, after UNISON failed to secure a sufficient mandate to take industrial action.

Backdated to April, the pay rise will give council staff outside London either £1,290 or 2.5%, whichever is higher, with slightly higher amounts for London-based staff.

The settlement is worth 3-4% for social workers and stands above the current rate of inflation in the UK, which has ranged between 1.7% and 2.3% since April.

However, this is lower than the deal received by many other public sector workers, including NHS social workers.

The government most responsible for pay deal

In previous years, some social workers have expressed disappointment towards unions for what they saw as uncoordinated and strung-out negotiations with unfavourable results. 

In 2023, there was an eight-month dispute before employers’ original pay offer, worth 4-6% for social workers, was accepted.

However, this year, the government was most likely to be viewed as responsible for the outcome of pay negotiations, being selected by 41% of respondents to our poll, which received 1,200 votes.

Next in line were individual staff “for not fighting hard enough” (23%), while 19% blamed union leaders for the pay deal and 9% pointed the finger at employers.

Memberships at risk of cancellation

Still, many practitioners in the comments were contemplating leaving their unions, with some saying that they did not receive their strike ballot papers.

“I am considering cancelling, I have NOT been sent ballot papers! I also don’t understand why the pay negotiations take so long,” said Nan.

“We were not given the opportunity to vote for better pay. [My union] needs to up its game to support its members [and] act in a timely manner!”

Another practitioner said they had to call their union twice to receive their ballot.

Mr D Das also attested that three of his colleagues had not received a ballot either.

“To be fair, they wanted a pay rise but were apathetic [about] contacting their union to get a ballot paper,” he added. “Another colleague didn’t receive a ballot paper, but felt strongly enough to [ask for] one from his union.”

David said he had just cancelled his membership with his union after 20 years because of the pay deal.

“I just fail to see what benefit they provide now and £270 is a lot of money for no real representation. Nationally, they’re not nearly visible enough for local government workers, and years of inadequate pay rises are a consequence.”

Phil Dolbear echoed this: “It’s the same every year. I’ve cancelled my union subscription. There’s no point in paying a monthly fee to a toothless organisation that can’t protect its members or negotiate a fair and realistic deal.”

‘Ballot arrangements should be made sooner’

Kye admitted feeling “failed by the unions”, adding that strike ballots should have been carried out sooner so families didn’t have to struggle to make ends meet before the Christmas period. 

“UNISON, GMB and Unite should be asking for the 2025-26 pay offer months before it is due to be implemented in April.”

Geoff Wode also asked for members to be balloted in April, rather than “when winter and Christmas is coming and the money is seven months overdue”.

“It seems too convenient that for the past three years [that] pay deals are accepted just before Christmas, when people are unlikely to vote for strike action and associate having a backdated payment in their November pay as a positive,” added Chris.

Geoff argued that being represented by three different unions diluted their power.

“The unions split into three doesn’t help clearly,” he said. “[They] don’t work together and their communication with their members is terrible.”

‘It is on members, not unions’

Others, however, believed the unions are only as strong as their members.

“How can people blame the unions? They need the members to agree to “strike” before they can take further action, we do nothing about it and expect change,” said one practitioner. 

Lin Newton blamed unions being “weak” to their members’ inactivity.

“Leaving [makes] you even more vulnerable to exploitation,” she added.

Samantha Davies also criticised those who “moan, but do not stick together”.

“Workers complain and have the chance to vote against what employers offer, then end up not voting and seeing it through,” she said. “People do not stand together anymore.”

Another urged those considering to leave their union to think twice.

“How does this help? YOU are the union. If you want an effective union, join it, lobby your colleagues to join it and then vote to strike. How does doing nothing solve the problem?”