It has been billed as the largest strike of its kind for decades. Hundreds of thousands will stop works. It involves a set of trade unions protesting about their economic plight and placing the blame for this distress on employers and ministers. It is said that there may be more to come if these demands are not respected. The inconvenience to the public is considerable. Yet it has no logic to it whatsoever. And, in an interesting coincidence, France will experience industrial unrest today as well.

For if the unions led by Unison are to be believed, “more than a million” of their members will decline to work in the biggest demonstration of anger since the General Strike of 1926. The catalyst is the proposed reform of the “85-year rule”, a component of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

If this provision required people to work until they were 85 years old, a degree of displeasure would be understandable. It does not, however. While, in theory, local government employees remain on the payroll until they reach 65, the present system allows them to retire earlier at the full rate if their combined age and length of service has reached 85. A man of 60 who has been employed by a council for a quarter of a century is thus qualified.

This is an enviable and increasingly expensive arrangement. There is a “black hole” in this pension plan of £27 billion for which councils, and more relevantly council taxpayers, are liable. It has been proposed, subject to an imminent ruling from John Prescott, that the 85-year perk be phased out by 2013. This would not prevent those who have spent decades in local government employment from leaving before their 65th birthday, but they would not secure their entire pension entitlement until that moment.

At a time when numerous companies in the private sector and institutions — ranging from British Airways to the TUC — have had to restructure pension provision, most people would view this initiative as reasonable. The trade unions disagree. They have reluctantly conceded the need for some change yet want the old terms kept for every existing employee and not offered to new entrants. Anything else, they contend, will create a “two-tier” public sector with some employees, such as the police, teachers and health workers, usually departing at 60, but their members struggling on for five extra years. Hence this one-day strike.

There are many faults with the union position. As far as the “two-tier” element is concerned, the injustice lies with the feeble decision to allow others in the public sector an automatic right of retirement at 60. In any case, the unions’ preferred “solution” would simply introduce a new “two-tier” division — if that is such a terrible thing — between those at work now and every future employee.

It is also a fantastically costly idea. It would involve an additional £6 billion over 15 years or an increase in council tax bills of an extra 2 per cent per annum over that period. Put slightly differently, almost the whole of the 4.5 per cent average rise in the council tax which exceeds inflation is the price of maintaining the 85-year rule.

There was a time when generous public sector pensions were defended as recompense for poor pay and conditions. Yet median-level full-time earnings in the public sector are £64 per week higher than the private sphere. It is not the unions who are entitled to complain today. It is council taxpayers who are working in private industry.