Defend UNISON activists 11 December 2007

I will post a full report of today’s meeting of UNISON’s National Executive Council later. I have come away from today’s meeting thinking very much about the forthcoming rally on 11 December (at the House of Commons, Committee Room 9 at 7pm)(further details online here)(and here) and about what the Union’s official attitude to the rally tells us about how UNISON activists should be organising and campaigning against privatisation and its consequences (including the victimisation of our activists).

First of all, let me be clear about the rally and how it came about. At the rally speakers will touch upon three important disputes involving UNISON – the campaign and strike action against the victimisation of Karen Reissman; the campaign and strike action against the victimisation of Michael Gavan; and the ongoing dispute with Fremantle against their attack upon the pay and conditions of their workers. The activists centrally involved in each dispute will speak, as will UNISON members (and MPs) John McDonnell and Kelvin Hopkins. The rally is being organised with the assistance of John McDonnell’s office and under the banner of the Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign but it is an initiative from the UNISON rank and file.

The idea for the rally came about when UNISON Regional Committee member MarshaJane Thompson (who is also co-Chair of the Socialist Youth Network, youth wing of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) of which John McDonnell is Chair) thought it would be a good idea to link together these three disputes around privatisation and arranged for John McDonnell to meet with activists from the three disputes to discuss what could be done.

John McDonnell met MarshaJane, Karen, Michael and representatives of the Barnet branch (who are involved in the Fremantle dispute) and as well as laying an Early Day Motion and press releasing photos from the meeting those present decided to organise a lobby/rally on 11 December.

I wish I could claim some credit for this initiative but I was not involved in that meeting and did not think of organising the rally. John McDonnell’s office sorted the room booking and MarshaJane organised the speakers.

The idea to organise an overtly political event about three disputes, focusing upon the common features of the disputes and mobilising support for the three together correctly concentrates upon building the strength and confidence of those involved in each dispute, and upon identifying the source of our problems in each case – which is the privatisation politics of the New Labour Government. It is an idea which is entirely consistent with UNISON’s policies, aims and values and is in the best traditions of trade union activism.

I’ll come back shortly to the question of why such an initiative has to arise informally from rank and file lay activists and not through the official structures of the Union, but I’ll admit now that this is precisely the sort of initiative which I (and other self-proclaimed “left wingers” on the NEC) ought to come up with and put into practice.

I think that sometimes we can become as hidebound by bureaucracy as those official structures I was mentioning.

One of our best UNISON Branch Secretaries recently asked me what I – and others on “the left” – actually do on the NEC and I wish that I could have answered that I use the position to organise events such as the 11 December Rally. I couldn’t because I didn’t.

I hope to change that and invite you to return to this blog in a few months and see if I have lived up to that aspiration.

Anyway, enough self-criticism. I am not a former Maoist (we have enough of those in the Union!) What matters is that, through the sort of creative synthesis that can so easily occur when activists involved in different disputes are brought together with experienced and imaginative allies, UNISON members sitting down over coffee came up with the idea of a rally at Parliament before Christmas in order to unite and focus support for three disputes, all of which relate, in their different ways, to privatisation.

The Fremantle workers are living with the consequences of privatisation. They don’t need to go on strike to experience hardship – they experience it daily because they are paid poverty wages and have to work ridiculous hours if they are to earn enough to live in one of the most expensive cities on the planet. Michael Gavan and Karen Reissman have both been singled out and sacked by employers who don’t care whether they break the law and are happy to shell out our (taxpayers’) money on compensation payments in order to eliminate vocal opponents of privatisation.

UNISON is providing full official support to all three of these disputes – and nothing in this post is intended to criticise or detract from the support being provided nationally to all three of these disputes. On the contrary this support – from our national office – is to be saluted. However, our Union tends to treat each dispute as a separate project and is not making the obvious connections between these disputes in spite of having a high profile national campaign in defence of public services (which is currently centre stage once more on our national website).

Why is it that the 11 December rally is the idea of a rank and file activist and not of a national official? I know there are more than one group of activists who think that our Union is soft in opposition to a Labour Government and its policies but I don’t think that that is the explanation in this case. UNISON nationally wants the Fremantle workers to win and wants Karen and Michael back at work representing our members. Dave Prentis made this very clear in his report to the NEC today.

When I asked – at the request of the Barnet branch – at today’s meeting whether we could give official backing to the 11 December rally, the General Secretary said that we wouldn’t do that because no formal official request had been made by one of our Regions. I have since asked our Regional Secretary and Acting Regional Convenor if the Greater London Region will make such a request. A similar request had already been made to the Region by the Regional Local Government Executive on Monday.

The response from the General Secretary (accurately describing the Union’s current practice) explains why a combination of bureaucratic routinism, political caution and (perhaps) a tiny dash of political sectarianism can combine to get in the way of UNISON giving official support to an event which was thought of by a UNISON member with the intention of supporting UNISON members involved in official disputes.

With the best will in the world the Union machine moves slowly and ponderously.

Without the best will in the world it can move at with all the speed of continental drift – and can focus internally on issues which are not at all helpful to the successful prosecution of an industrial dispute. Those who wish for a positive outcome to all three of these important disputes (and who clearly include our President and senior national officials) would all hope for a “can do” approach from those advising and assisting the branches in dispute. If a question arises – say, “how can we address hardship to those on strike or being victimised?” – we would all hope for a response which identifies how, within the Rules, we can do the right thing to deliver solidarity (not charity).

No one who sought victory in these disputes would look at them from the point of view of thinking that anything not specifically permitted by Rule is therefore prohibited. However that sort of thinking can all too easily permeate the official structures of a trade union – because, as with any large bureaucracy, there is an incentive for office holders to protect themselves rather than to take bold (and sometimes risky) initiatives.

I think that this organisational imperative is far more important than any question of divided loyalties (as between the Union and the New Labour Government) in explaining why the official Union machine is experienced by activists so often as an obstacle rather than as an asset when we are in dispute.

To most active trade unionists it is common sense that we should be backing and organising for a rally at the House of Commons, in a room booked by a UNISON Member of Parliament representing the Party to which we are affiliated (for as long as that is still permitted!) and which has been initiated by one of our own activists in order to support three vitally important official disputes all of which touch upon one of our key campaigning priorities.

However from the perspective of an official embedded in the Byzantine bureaucracy of our Union this initiative can be seen as a worrying and uncontrollable development, to the extent that I have even heard of one extreme example of an official suggesting that Union resources should not be used to encourage members to attend the rally.

How silly! Such an absurd reading of the Rules could only be arrived at by someone without an ounce of solidarity in their body.

I shall certainly encourage UNISON members to attend this important rally in defence of UNISON activists – and if that ever becomes a disciplinary offence in our Union then I expect to be amongst those disciplined.

There will be no future for a trade union which prefers to squabble with its activists rather than mount a vigorous defence of our members’ interests.

I do not believe that UNISON is such a Union or that those in charge at a national level wish it to be so.

The larger question is how we change our Union so that we can organise more effectively and respond positively rather than cautiously – or even negatively – to solidarity and support.

To that question I do not pretend to have a definite answer, but then that’s part of what I have been blogging about here for the past year and more, and for those readers who do have an answer, the comments box is open!

I think that the first step towards an answer to this bigger question is for everyone who is reading this and who can be in London on the evening of Tuesday 11 December to get along to the rally to show support for Karen Reissman, Michael Gavan and the Fremantle strikers. This is a positive initiative which deserves the support of all trade unionists.

See you there! (House of Commons, Committee Room 9, 7pm on Tuesday 11 December)

And if you can’t make it then contact your MP and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 276 in defence of UNISON activists!