Today’s news is terrible – and not just for the victim of assassination.
All the world leaders condemn the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but this looks to me like the sort of event which will mark the “New World Order” of the twenty first century. One more death among many others.
There is some sensible comment on this event. I can’t help but step back and look at where we are and how we got here.
Imperialist adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, eagerly supported by daft cheerleaders in this country, have contributed massively to destabilising an entire region.
The United States sponsored political Islam as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and now wages a nonsensical “war on terror” whilst the “terror” against which “we” are at war appears to be armed materially by elements within the Pakistani security services (“our” allies) and ideologically by the those close to the Saudi regime (also “our” allies – though not ours!)
The “war” on terror provides the perfect enemy for the single global superpower, and its (latest) demented poodle. An intangible adversary gives every opportunity for unnecessary attacks upon liberty at home , asymmetrical warfare overseas and a context for domestic austerity.
We are reaping the whirlwind that was unleashed by the fall of the wall. I was no fan of the Soviet Union (and am in no doubt that it’s collapse was a long term consequence of the betrayal of the revolution by the Stalinists) (sorry comrades). However, since the global alternative to capitalism was squashed under the wheels of a convoy of westbound Trabants (and its own failings) we have seen what this unipolar world is going to be like. It's not looking good.
For us in the UK we have a declining trade union movement and a party of “the left” which is no longer of the left. Attempts to build socialist alternatives to the Labour Party are either tragic or farcical. It is easy to fall prey to despair.
There is hope in the world of course (and our movement globally is not in decline). We have to make our own hope too though. As we think globally we have to act locally – against attacks on our class and our fellow activists.
We have to build (and rebuild) a democratic movement of working class people not only because that is how we strive for dignity and justice in the workplace right now but because our movement is the last and only hope for the future of humanity.
Might take a while though…
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Season's Greetings
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year reader to all readers of this blog (that's obviously both of you - Sid and Doris Blogger of Neasden...)
We have loads to do in 2008 so if you don't mind I shall try to relax and unwind until the end of 2007... :)
We have loads to do in 2008 so if you don't mind I shall try to relax and unwind until the end of 2007... :)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Here we go, here we go, here we go?
As we were told last week, yesterday saw the launch of the TUC’s coordination of a campaign to break the Government’s 2% pay policy – full details of which are online here.
I am of course a bit of a cynic but it does worry me to read that the TUC has “called on ministers to accept in full the next round of recommendations from the various pay review bodies, if they wanted to avoid a repetition of the anger that provoked a wave of strike ballots across the public sector in 2007.”
Personally I object to pay being set by “review bodies” which pretend to neutrality rather than by the process of collective bargaining – but I recognise that there are divided views on this in the movement. However, given that the whole point of our pay campaign for the coming year is to break the 2% norm I doubt the wisdom of simply tying ourselves to whatever is recommended by the pay review bodies.
Furthermore, I don’t think we will get very far by threatening a repeat of 2007, which saw a comprehensive failure to build a united fight on pay across the public sector.
It is much more helpful to read that “the TUC campaign will also call for pay increases to reflect the true cost of living in the UK. The government insists on using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which currently stands at 2.1% as its target for pay awards. Yet working people are currently facing real inflation levels of 4.1% according to the Retail Price Index (RPI). This measure, which includes housing costs, is a more accurate and realistic reflection of the rising cost of living than the CPI.”
Whilst there is strategic political importance in breaking the 2% norm, our members will only experience any pay settlement as a victory if it at least begins to reverse the decline in living standards over recent years – this certainly means a settlement above the increase in the RPI. The TUC have also issued a report rebutting the suggestion that public sector pay increases are driving inflation.
UNISON local government branches need to remember to return the consultation pro formas to their Regional office so that the local government pay claim can be formulated. We also need to get back on track with work at local and Regional level to build direct links with rank and file members of other Unions.
For those who don’t wish to navigate the obstacle courses which can be set in the way of such sensible initiatives by over rigid interpretation of relevant UNISON guidelines, it would be a good idea to get the local Trades Council to organise a meeting early in the New Year – and to set up a Trades Council if one doesn’t exist so that it is available to enable local rank and file coordination in future.
Officially the Union is set to focus, very sensibly, upon building alliances with the key unions in each sector on a sector by sector basis – this is crucial since it would weaken us if unions with significant membership in health or local government were not part of a united fight. Locally and at a rank and file level it is important that we make links with brothers and sisters in all public sector unions – this is a political fight against a political enemy and we need to maximise our forces to secure the best outcome.
I am of course a bit of a cynic but it does worry me to read that the TUC has “called on ministers to accept in full the next round of recommendations from the various pay review bodies, if they wanted to avoid a repetition of the anger that provoked a wave of strike ballots across the public sector in 2007.”
Personally I object to pay being set by “review bodies” which pretend to neutrality rather than by the process of collective bargaining – but I recognise that there are divided views on this in the movement. However, given that the whole point of our pay campaign for the coming year is to break the 2% norm I doubt the wisdom of simply tying ourselves to whatever is recommended by the pay review bodies.
Furthermore, I don’t think we will get very far by threatening a repeat of 2007, which saw a comprehensive failure to build a united fight on pay across the public sector.
It is much more helpful to read that “the TUC campaign will also call for pay increases to reflect the true cost of living in the UK. The government insists on using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which currently stands at 2.1% as its target for pay awards. Yet working people are currently facing real inflation levels of 4.1% according to the Retail Price Index (RPI). This measure, which includes housing costs, is a more accurate and realistic reflection of the rising cost of living than the CPI.”
Whilst there is strategic political importance in breaking the 2% norm, our members will only experience any pay settlement as a victory if it at least begins to reverse the decline in living standards over recent years – this certainly means a settlement above the increase in the RPI. The TUC have also issued a report rebutting the suggestion that public sector pay increases are driving inflation.
UNISON local government branches need to remember to return the consultation pro formas to their Regional office so that the local government pay claim can be formulated. We also need to get back on track with work at local and Regional level to build direct links with rank and file members of other Unions.
For those who don’t wish to navigate the obstacle courses which can be set in the way of such sensible initiatives by over rigid interpretation of relevant UNISON guidelines, it would be a good idea to get the local Trades Council to organise a meeting early in the New Year – and to set up a Trades Council if one doesn’t exist so that it is available to enable local rank and file coordination in future.
Officially the Union is set to focus, very sensibly, upon building alliances with the key unions in each sector on a sector by sector basis – this is crucial since it would weaken us if unions with significant membership in health or local government were not part of a united fight. Locally and at a rank and file level it is important that we make links with brothers and sisters in all public sector unions – this is a political fight against a political enemy and we need to maximise our forces to secure the best outcome.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
2008 pay fight starts here?
As reported by Dave Prentis to the last UNISON NEC meeting, it is reported in today’s Observer that the TUC will this week launch a campaign on public sector pay. Although not yet on the TUC website it appears that this campaign is going to borrow the badge of “Speak Up for Public Services” which was established around the official lobby of Parliament last January.
Of course that lobby was dwarfed by the 2,000 plus strong lobby organised by the Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign in July 2006. We do need the TUC to coordinate joint action on public sector pay – but history suggests we should be cautious about the leadership of the TUC, which will itself be ultra-cautious!
However, we do have the opportunity to confront the Government over its pay policy in 2008 in the interests of our members – and in a way which we have failed in 2007. We need to put our feet up, relax and party for a couple of weeks now because next year is going to be tough...
Of course that lobby was dwarfed by the 2,000 plus strong lobby organised by the Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign in July 2006. We do need the TUC to coordinate joint action on public sector pay – but history suggests we should be cautious about the leadership of the TUC, which will itself be ultra-cautious!
However, we do have the opportunity to confront the Government over its pay policy in 2008 in the interests of our members – and in a way which we have failed in 2007. We need to put our feet up, relax and party for a couple of weeks now because next year is going to be tough...
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Victimisations Update
Following the decision of the former employers of UNISON health activist Karen Reissman not to overturn her dismissal on appeal her branch has decided to suspend the indefinite strike action which had been taking place in order to focus on a national political campaign. Details are available on the campaign website and UNISON’s national support is also expressed online. Karen’s campaign hits Leeds on Monday.
Meanwhile you can keep up to date with the fight to defend Newham UNISON Branch Chair Michael Gavan at the Newham UNISON website. The Newham Branch Committee meet on Monday to consider the next steps in the light of the successful strike action on Thursday and other recent developments. UNISON must – and I believe will – step up and intensify our campaign for Michael’s reinstatement.
You can easily let Newham’s elected Mayor Robin Wales know what you think he should do (reinstate Michael Gavan) by using the Mayor’s online comments form. You can also contact your MP and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 276 in support of UNISON activists (including Michael and Karen) and also Early Day Motion 443, which deals specifically with Karen’s case.
The success of Tuesday’s rally at the House of Commons demonstrates the potential for an effective political campaign against these victimisations. If the Union’s official structures can be geared up for action in the New Year we can get Karen and Michael back to work.
Meanwhile you can keep up to date with the fight to defend Newham UNISON Branch Chair Michael Gavan at the Newham UNISON website. The Newham Branch Committee meet on Monday to consider the next steps in the light of the successful strike action on Thursday and other recent developments. UNISON must – and I believe will – step up and intensify our campaign for Michael’s reinstatement.
You can easily let Newham’s elected Mayor Robin Wales know what you think he should do (reinstate Michael Gavan) by using the Mayor’s online comments form. You can also contact your MP and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 276 in support of UNISON activists (including Michael and Karen) and also Early Day Motion 443, which deals specifically with Karen’s case.
The success of Tuesday’s rally at the House of Commons demonstrates the potential for an effective political campaign against these victimisations. If the Union’s official structures can be geared up for action in the New Year we can get Karen and Michael back to work.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Strike action can get results
According to the UNISON Scottish Region website, striking daycare workers in Glasgow have narrowly voted to accept a settlement and bring to an end their eight week old strike. Critics of the deal put before the strikers believe that the strikers should have held out for more. It seems that a settlement which removes the need for pay protection depends upon agreement to changes in service delivery.
From hundreds of miles away I am not in a position to say if this is a good deal or not (although clearly the strikers themselves were in two minds about settling as the vote was very close). However, this development does show that the employers can be shifted by industrial action. I hope that this is good news for UNISON members in Newham gearing up for strike action on 13 December in opposition to the disgraceful victimisation of UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.
Good luck to Newham UNISON for tomorrow’s strike!
From hundreds of miles away I am not in a position to say if this is a good deal or not (although clearly the strikers themselves were in two minds about settling as the vote was very close). However, this development does show that the employers can be shifted by industrial action. I hope that this is good news for UNISON members in Newham gearing up for strike action on 13 December in opposition to the disgraceful victimisation of UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.
Good luck to Newham UNISON for tomorrow’s strike!
Report to Greater London UNISON Branches - support Newham strike on 13 December - defend Karen Reissman
This is the text of a report I have made today to branches in the Greater London Region of UNISON;
I attended last night a meeting at the House of Commons at which I gained some useful information about official UNISON disputes from speakers directly involved in those disputes. I am writing to pass this information on urgently to branches in the Greater London Region.
Newham branch strike action 13 December
UNISON members in Newham local government branch are on strike tomorrow – as you may have seen on the Regional UNISON website. This strike is part of UNISON’s official dispute with Newham Council over the disgraceful sacking of Newham Branch Chair, Michael Gavan, for having undertaken trade union activities.
A rally will take place from 11.30am at the Hartley Centre in East Ham. The address is 267 Barking Road, East Ham, E6. It’s five minutes walk from East Ham Town Hall and ten minutes walk from East Ham tube, which is on the District Line.
This strike comes a day before UNISON’s claim for “interim relief” for Michael and I hope that anyone who can possibly be in Newham to support Michael and the Newham branch will do so. There can be no more important priority than support for a fellow trade unionist who has been victimised. If you can possibly cancel commitments in order to be there tomorrow please do.
Karen Reissman dispute
As you may have seen on the national UNISON website, the appeal against the dismissal of Manchester UNISON health service activist Karen Reissman was dismissed yesterday. I heard yesterday from two of the striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch whose members are determined to secure justice for Karen and who have the full official support of UNISON.
I attach a motion adopted by a meeting of striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch yesterday which I know that the strikers wish to draw to the attention of UNISON branches, and which sets out their views as to how the dispute should now be carried forward. (If any UNISON member would like to see a copy of the motion contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk).
You can keep up to date with the campaign at the campaign website as well as in the regular bulletins which are being sent out officially.
Finally, if you would like to read a report from yesterday’s meeting (which was not an official UNISON meeting) a report is available online.
Both Karen and Michael have been sacked for being dedicated and effective trade union activists and for pursuing UNISON’s policy of opposition to privatisation, I hope that all branches in Greater London will be considering how we can help and support our victimised activists.
I attended last night a meeting at the House of Commons at which I gained some useful information about official UNISON disputes from speakers directly involved in those disputes. I am writing to pass this information on urgently to branches in the Greater London Region.
Newham branch strike action 13 December
UNISON members in Newham local government branch are on strike tomorrow – as you may have seen on the Regional UNISON website. This strike is part of UNISON’s official dispute with Newham Council over the disgraceful sacking of Newham Branch Chair, Michael Gavan, for having undertaken trade union activities.
A rally will take place from 11.30am at the Hartley Centre in East Ham. The address is 267 Barking Road, East Ham, E6. It’s five minutes walk from East Ham Town Hall and ten minutes walk from East Ham tube, which is on the District Line.
This strike comes a day before UNISON’s claim for “interim relief” for Michael and I hope that anyone who can possibly be in Newham to support Michael and the Newham branch will do so. There can be no more important priority than support for a fellow trade unionist who has been victimised. If you can possibly cancel commitments in order to be there tomorrow please do.
Karen Reissman dispute
As you may have seen on the national UNISON website, the appeal against the dismissal of Manchester UNISON health service activist Karen Reissman was dismissed yesterday. I heard yesterday from two of the striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch whose members are determined to secure justice for Karen and who have the full official support of UNISON.
I attach a motion adopted by a meeting of striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch yesterday which I know that the strikers wish to draw to the attention of UNISON branches, and which sets out their views as to how the dispute should now be carried forward. (If any UNISON member would like to see a copy of the motion contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk).
You can keep up to date with the campaign at the campaign website as well as in the regular bulletins which are being sent out officially.
Finally, if you would like to read a report from yesterday’s meeting (which was not an official UNISON meeting) a report is available online.
Both Karen and Michael have been sacked for being dedicated and effective trade union activists and for pursuing UNISON’s policy of opposition to privatisation, I hope that all branches in Greater London will be considering how we can help and support our victimised activists.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Tuesday 11 December - rally in support of UNISON activists
I hope every reader of this blog who can be in London on the evening of Tuesday 11 December will make your way to Committee Room 9 at the House of Commons at 7pm to hear from Michael Gavan, Karen Reissman and the Fremantle strikers, as well as supporters including MPs John McDonnell and Kelvin Hopkins.
This meeting has been organised in support of three official UNISON disputes all of which relate to the problem of privatisation and to UNISON’s campaign in defence of our public services. I hope to see you there!
I know this post repeats things I have said already. Some things are worth repeating!
This meeting has been organised in support of three official UNISON disputes all of which relate to the problem of privatisation and to UNISON’s campaign in defence of our public services. I hope to see you there!
I know this post repeats things I have said already. Some things are worth repeating!
Local Government Pay 2008 - what to ask for and how to get it?
Hat’s off to my fellow NEC blogger John McDermott – who was in ahead of me with his NEC report and has blogged since about the local government pay claim.
UNISON branches are being consulted on the claim – though we have very little time in which to give our views I am very sympathetic to the need for early agreement on a claim so that it can be submitted quickly. The NJC Committee agreed there should not be a repeat of the long and drawn out negotiations over pay that occurred this year, and that the claim should be for a headline figure of 6%. They also agreed the claim should seek to substantially increase pay at the bottom end, with a view to making progress towards a minimum hourly rate of £6.75.
The GMB has already arrived at a settled view which is to call for;
* 7% or 75p/hour increase, whichever is the greater, for a one-year deal.
* A 35 hour week with no detriment.
* 2 days additional annual leave with no detriment.
* Improvements to car mileage payments.
* An increase to the night shift allowance to achieve double time over three years.
* An increase to the sleep-in allowance to £60 per shift.
The UNISON NJC Committee are recommending that the service conditions issues should be part of a separate claim as part of the joint review of the Green Book (the national agreement). The London Regional Local Government Executive discussed this earlier in the week as I reported earlier.
My friend and comrade Malcolm Campbell expressed support for a flat rate claim – which is what I shall argue for in my branch. I’d be interested to know what other branches are thinking of.
We also need to discuss tactics for strike action over the national pay dispute which we will inevitably be having next year. Is our objective to break the 2% norm or to achieve an above inflation increase? How do we motivate those who will be or are already on pay protection as a result of Single Status to campaign for a pay rise they may not see immediately (depending upon the status of their protection)?
There’s a lot to think about.
UNISON branches are being consulted on the claim – though we have very little time in which to give our views I am very sympathetic to the need for early agreement on a claim so that it can be submitted quickly. The NJC Committee agreed there should not be a repeat of the long and drawn out negotiations over pay that occurred this year, and that the claim should be for a headline figure of 6%. They also agreed the claim should seek to substantially increase pay at the bottom end, with a view to making progress towards a minimum hourly rate of £6.75.
The GMB has already arrived at a settled view which is to call for;
* 7% or 75p/hour increase, whichever is the greater, for a one-year deal.
* A 35 hour week with no detriment.
* 2 days additional annual leave with no detriment.
* Improvements to car mileage payments.
* An increase to the night shift allowance to achieve double time over three years.
* An increase to the sleep-in allowance to £60 per shift.
The UNISON NJC Committee are recommending that the service conditions issues should be part of a separate claim as part of the joint review of the Green Book (the national agreement). The London Regional Local Government Executive discussed this earlier in the week as I reported earlier.
My friend and comrade Malcolm Campbell expressed support for a flat rate claim – which is what I shall argue for in my branch. I’d be interested to know what other branches are thinking of.
We also need to discuss tactics for strike action over the national pay dispute which we will inevitably be having next year. Is our objective to break the 2% norm or to achieve an above inflation increase? How do we motivate those who will be or are already on pay protection as a result of Single Status to campaign for a pay rise they may not see immediately (depending upon the status of their protection)?
There’s a lot to think about.
Friday, December 07, 2007
This is my slightly belated personal report to Greater London Region UNISON Branches of the meeting of our National Executive Council (NEC) which took place on Wednesday 5 December;
"I would particularly draw to your attention the final part of this report which deals with an important rally taking place at the House of Commons on Tuesday 11 December at 7pm, which I would encourage you very much to attend.
An official report will be made on behalf of all London Region NEC members to the Regional Council Annual General Meeting. If any branch would like further information (or would prefer not to receive such personal reports) please let me know on j.rogers@unison.co.uk.
I will cover only the main items of business in this report. Please get in touch if you would like further information about the items which I don’t cover in detail.
The NEC endorsed revised Objectives and Priorities for the Union for the coming year and considered a budgetary report. We also received our regular Recruitment Update and noted improved recruitment performance in October which should mean that we will not, as had been feared, experience a net loss of members nationally this year.
EQUAL PAY
The first major item of business was Equal Pay, which took up more than an hour of the meeting. The NEC received a detailed and lengthy report (which was tabled at the meeting and which for legal reasons I cannot circulate). I raised some issues at the request of the Islington Local Government branch and if any other branches are experiencing particular difficulties I am happy to raise these at future meetings.
If any branches would like a verbal update on the discussion at the NEC please call me on 07957 505 571. Regular bulletins about the extensive work of the national Union in relation to Equal Pay are being circulated and are available at the UNISON website at http://www.unison.org.uk/equalpay/index.asp.
LGPS UPDATE
The NEC was updated on further developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The outcome of Government consultation on extending protection in relation to the loss of the “Rule of 85” is awaited. The Government are consulting on arrangements for the “third tier” of medical retirement (those who are unfit for their present job but likely to be fit for other gainful employment in future) who, on the proposals being consulted on, will receive an immediate unreduced pension. Clarification was requested and promised as to whether or not an actuarial reduction would apply. Further information is online at http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B3642.pdf and has been sent to branches.
2008 PUBLIC SECTOR PAY NEGOTIATIONS
Dave Prentis reported on discussion at UNISON’s Service Group Liaison Committee and at the TUC, where he had chaired a meeting of all public sector trade unions the day before the NEC meeting.
An agreement has been reached among the Unions that we must try to break the Government’s pay policy by submitting early claims intended to break the 2% figure. The TUC will have a role in coordinating this and there will be a major launch of the pay campaign – probably in mid December. Co-ordination will focus on “sector by sector” co-ordination (e.g. in health or local government). Dave expressed the opinion that “we won’t win by working with Unions outside our remit” – which begs a number of questions about the nature of the unity we are trying to achieve.
Dave reported that he had met Treasury Minister Andy Burnham who had told him that the Government wanted long term pay deals and he had said that there was no prospect of that on the basis of the current pay policy. UNISON’s Annual Pay seminar (which involves senior NEC members, Service Group Chairs and Regional Convenors as well as senior national and Regional officials) will take place on 9 and 10 January 2008.
Branches will also be receiving reports from their Service Groups about arrangements for the submission of claims (where we negotiate on pay) and evidence (to Pay Review Bodies). The NEC received a useful table detailing progress in each set of pay negotiations ahead of the meeting and if any branches would like a copy please let me know.
The NEC then moved on to deal with preparations for next year’s Conference, and on progress with the project to build a new Head Office, before moving on to the General Secretary’s report.
GENERAL SECRETARY’S REPORT
Dave Prentis reported on a number of issues including UNISON’s complaint against several national newspapers over their treatment of our Police Community Support Officer members in the North West; lobbying in connection with the Agency Workers Directive; and important legal victory on strike pay deductions; our support for striking members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP); the NHS demonstration on 3 November; Dave expressed UNISON’s support for striking members in Glasgow City Council and for and the current disputes with Fremantle and against the victimisation of Michael Gavan and Karen Reissman.
In connection with these items I asked Dave about support for the rally taking place at the House of Commons on Tuesday 11 December at 7pm in Committee Room 9. This rally is in support of Fremantle, Michael and Karen. Dave said it could not be officially supported as there had been no request from a Regional Office (I have since written to our Regional Secretary, Linda Perks and Acting Regional Convenor, Gloria Hanson to ask that they make such a request).
The rally has been organised on the initiative of an activist in the Greater London Region because of the urgency of the disputes and is not in conflict with UNISON’s official support for all three disputes.
It was made clear by UNISON President Norma Stephenson that UNISON members are perfectly entitled to attend this rally in support of UNISON activists – and I would strongly encourage all branches in Greater London to attend on Tuesday.
I hope to see you there! Please publicise the rally and encourage members to attend so that they can meet Michael, Karen and the Fremantle strikers and express their support for these official UNISON disputes. I know that by the time you read this message the rally will be only a day away and that we are close to the holiday period. However these are vitally important official disputes and I do hope you will do what you can to help."
And that last point goes for all readers of this blog also - let this be the season of goodwill towards UNISON activists :)
"I would particularly draw to your attention the final part of this report which deals with an important rally taking place at the House of Commons on Tuesday 11 December at 7pm, which I would encourage you very much to attend.
An official report will be made on behalf of all London Region NEC members to the Regional Council Annual General Meeting. If any branch would like further information (or would prefer not to receive such personal reports) please let me know on j.rogers@unison.co.uk.
I will cover only the main items of business in this report. Please get in touch if you would like further information about the items which I don’t cover in detail.
The NEC endorsed revised Objectives and Priorities for the Union for the coming year and considered a budgetary report. We also received our regular Recruitment Update and noted improved recruitment performance in October which should mean that we will not, as had been feared, experience a net loss of members nationally this year.
EQUAL PAY
The first major item of business was Equal Pay, which took up more than an hour of the meeting. The NEC received a detailed and lengthy report (which was tabled at the meeting and which for legal reasons I cannot circulate). I raised some issues at the request of the Islington Local Government branch and if any other branches are experiencing particular difficulties I am happy to raise these at future meetings.
If any branches would like a verbal update on the discussion at the NEC please call me on 07957 505 571. Regular bulletins about the extensive work of the national Union in relation to Equal Pay are being circulated and are available at the UNISON website at http://www.unison.org.uk/equalpay/index.asp.
LGPS UPDATE
The NEC was updated on further developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The outcome of Government consultation on extending protection in relation to the loss of the “Rule of 85” is awaited. The Government are consulting on arrangements for the “third tier” of medical retirement (those who are unfit for their present job but likely to be fit for other gainful employment in future) who, on the proposals being consulted on, will receive an immediate unreduced pension. Clarification was requested and promised as to whether or not an actuarial reduction would apply. Further information is online at http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B3642.pdf and has been sent to branches.
2008 PUBLIC SECTOR PAY NEGOTIATIONS
Dave Prentis reported on discussion at UNISON’s Service Group Liaison Committee and at the TUC, where he had chaired a meeting of all public sector trade unions the day before the NEC meeting.
An agreement has been reached among the Unions that we must try to break the Government’s pay policy by submitting early claims intended to break the 2% figure. The TUC will have a role in coordinating this and there will be a major launch of the pay campaign – probably in mid December. Co-ordination will focus on “sector by sector” co-ordination (e.g. in health or local government). Dave expressed the opinion that “we won’t win by working with Unions outside our remit” – which begs a number of questions about the nature of the unity we are trying to achieve.
Dave reported that he had met Treasury Minister Andy Burnham who had told him that the Government wanted long term pay deals and he had said that there was no prospect of that on the basis of the current pay policy. UNISON’s Annual Pay seminar (which involves senior NEC members, Service Group Chairs and Regional Convenors as well as senior national and Regional officials) will take place on 9 and 10 January 2008.
Branches will also be receiving reports from their Service Groups about arrangements for the submission of claims (where we negotiate on pay) and evidence (to Pay Review Bodies). The NEC received a useful table detailing progress in each set of pay negotiations ahead of the meeting and if any branches would like a copy please let me know.
The NEC then moved on to deal with preparations for next year’s Conference, and on progress with the project to build a new Head Office, before moving on to the General Secretary’s report.
GENERAL SECRETARY’S REPORT
Dave Prentis reported on a number of issues including UNISON’s complaint against several national newspapers over their treatment of our Police Community Support Officer members in the North West; lobbying in connection with the Agency Workers Directive; and important legal victory on strike pay deductions; our support for striking members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP); the NHS demonstration on 3 November; Dave expressed UNISON’s support for striking members in Glasgow City Council and for and the current disputes with Fremantle and against the victimisation of Michael Gavan and Karen Reissman.
In connection with these items I asked Dave about support for the rally taking place at the House of Commons on Tuesday 11 December at 7pm in Committee Room 9. This rally is in support of Fremantle, Michael and Karen. Dave said it could not be officially supported as there had been no request from a Regional Office (I have since written to our Regional Secretary, Linda Perks and Acting Regional Convenor, Gloria Hanson to ask that they make such a request).
The rally has been organised on the initiative of an activist in the Greater London Region because of the urgency of the disputes and is not in conflict with UNISON’s official support for all three disputes.
It was made clear by UNISON President Norma Stephenson that UNISON members are perfectly entitled to attend this rally in support of UNISON activists – and I would strongly encourage all branches in Greater London to attend on Tuesday.
I hope to see you there! Please publicise the rally and encourage members to attend so that they can meet Michael, Karen and the Fremantle strikers and express their support for these official UNISON disputes. I know that by the time you read this message the rally will be only a day away and that we are close to the holiday period. However these are vitally important official disputes and I do hope you will do what you can to help."
And that last point goes for all readers of this blog also - let this be the season of goodwill towards UNISON activists :)
Equal Pay - where do we go now?
I really will get my report of Wednesday’s NEC meeting written up shortly!
When I do I won’t cover in full detail the longest discussion at the meeting, as I have been able to do now for the last couple of years. That’s because the lengthy discussions on Equal Pay (including the implementation of Agenda for Change in the Health Service and Single Status in local government) concern an area in which the trade unions (not just UNISON) are embroiled in so much litigation. We are running thousands of legal cases and are also responding to a smaller – but still large – number of cases in which Union members are taking action against their Union (assisted and encouraged by a growing band of “No Win No Fee” solicitors).
The legal advice is that anything said officially by or on behalf of UNISON could end up being used – unpredictably – in evidence against the Union. It is all unpredictable because the case law in this area is continually evolving and so what it is reasonable to do one day may turn out later to have been unreasonable and wrong as the courts decide that the law always meant something different.
One consequence of all of this is that the Union isn’t really able to communicate effectively about the vast amount of work which is being done in relation to equal pay – and is also very reticent about publicising the various local disputes which have been springing up. We are also not really pursuing our campaigning agenda with the vigour that is called for, both I think because of the sheer scale of Head Office resources tied up by the litigation but also because I am not sure anyone in the union movement, or in Government, has a ready solution to the problem.
Of course we do know part of the solution – Government funding on a sufficient scale to fill the gender pay gap, providing recompense to those who have lost out and levelling up rather than down. This is the policy of UNISON and of the TUC and our Local Government Service Group lobbied Parliament along these lines in the summer. All we got was a little extra “capitalisation” (authority for local Councils to go further into debt to fund the costs of implementing Single Status).
Another bizarre consequence of the current wave of litigation is that, on legal advice, we cannot now formally debate Equal Pay at our decision making Conferences (for fear that a resolution drafted in clear and unambiguous terms could come to be evidence against the Union in a case in which, of necessity, we have had to settle for less than our initial demands). As we wait for cases to make their way to Europe this self-imposed silence is set to last for several years.
Now even our ability to communicate with our members at branch level is being inhibited. Such is the all pervading influence of the culture of litigation upon the Union that it is quite possible now that branches negotiating the best deal that they can get with an employer can be told that the Union will recommend members reject that deal, even though we have no viable strategy to improve it, because a cautious reading of developing case law suggests potential legal liability for the Union were it to recommend the deal.
I am generally among the first to criticise the recommendation to members of unsatisfactory settlements – but the place to resolve differences of this nature is within the Union movement through our democratic structures.
We have now reached a point at which, in relation to a central issue for our Union affecting many thousands of our members in a very direct way, we can do almost none of the things that a Union should do without first asking a lawyer and waiting (and waiting) for their advice.
We need to find a way out of this impasse that does not involve waiting for the end of all the litigation, otherwise we are simply failing to act as a trade union should in relation to one of our own key priorities.
When I do I won’t cover in full detail the longest discussion at the meeting, as I have been able to do now for the last couple of years. That’s because the lengthy discussions on Equal Pay (including the implementation of Agenda for Change in the Health Service and Single Status in local government) concern an area in which the trade unions (not just UNISON) are embroiled in so much litigation. We are running thousands of legal cases and are also responding to a smaller – but still large – number of cases in which Union members are taking action against their Union (assisted and encouraged by a growing band of “No Win No Fee” solicitors).
The legal advice is that anything said officially by or on behalf of UNISON could end up being used – unpredictably – in evidence against the Union. It is all unpredictable because the case law in this area is continually evolving and so what it is reasonable to do one day may turn out later to have been unreasonable and wrong as the courts decide that the law always meant something different.
One consequence of all of this is that the Union isn’t really able to communicate effectively about the vast amount of work which is being done in relation to equal pay – and is also very reticent about publicising the various local disputes which have been springing up. We are also not really pursuing our campaigning agenda with the vigour that is called for, both I think because of the sheer scale of Head Office resources tied up by the litigation but also because I am not sure anyone in the union movement, or in Government, has a ready solution to the problem.
Of course we do know part of the solution – Government funding on a sufficient scale to fill the gender pay gap, providing recompense to those who have lost out and levelling up rather than down. This is the policy of UNISON and of the TUC and our Local Government Service Group lobbied Parliament along these lines in the summer. All we got was a little extra “capitalisation” (authority for local Councils to go further into debt to fund the costs of implementing Single Status).
Another bizarre consequence of the current wave of litigation is that, on legal advice, we cannot now formally debate Equal Pay at our decision making Conferences (for fear that a resolution drafted in clear and unambiguous terms could come to be evidence against the Union in a case in which, of necessity, we have had to settle for less than our initial demands). As we wait for cases to make their way to Europe this self-imposed silence is set to last for several years.
Now even our ability to communicate with our members at branch level is being inhibited. Such is the all pervading influence of the culture of litigation upon the Union that it is quite possible now that branches negotiating the best deal that they can get with an employer can be told that the Union will recommend members reject that deal, even though we have no viable strategy to improve it, because a cautious reading of developing case law suggests potential legal liability for the Union were it to recommend the deal.
I am generally among the first to criticise the recommendation to members of unsatisfactory settlements – but the place to resolve differences of this nature is within the Union movement through our democratic structures.
We have now reached a point at which, in relation to a central issue for our Union affecting many thousands of our members in a very direct way, we can do almost none of the things that a Union should do without first asking a lawyer and waiting (and waiting) for their advice.
We need to find a way out of this impasse that does not involve waiting for the end of all the litigation, otherwise we are simply failing to act as a trade union should in relation to one of our own key priorities.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
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!
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!
Monday, December 03, 2007
Regional Local Government Executive Report
Today’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Executive witnessed a particularly lengthy debate around the Secretary’s report on industrial action in London local government.
Two visitors from the Barnet branch kicked off a positive discussion about support for the long running Fremantle dispute. The Committee agreed to congratulate the branch and the strikers on sustaining their dispute and to call for support for the rally at the House of Commons on 11 December and for Early Day Motion 276.
The Committee also discussed the disgraceful victimisation of Michael Gavan, Chair of Newham UNISON local government branch. It was reported that Michael’s claim for interim relief at the employment tribunal will be heard on Friday 14 November and that the Newham Branch Committee will this evening be considering whether to call for further strike action in advance of that hearing. The Committee gave its full support to UNISON’s campaign for Michael’s reinstatement and gave in principle support to any further requests for strike action which the branch may make.
The Committee also agreed to encourage a positive approach to identifying ways in which financial support can be given to victimised activists.
The Committee went on to debate the process whereby requests from branches for industrial action ballots are considered. This is clearly unsatisfactory and gives rise to avoidable delays and the Executive agreed to refer the question to the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee. Time will tell whether this will lead to any positive progress. Branches may need to consider how to put motions to National Delegate Conference to expedite industrial action requests.
The other main item of business which I should report in the time available concerns our pay claim for 2008. Branches should shortly receive a draft claim agreed by the UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee on 28 November, this is for 6% and substantial progress to achieve UNISON’s (national) objective of a minimum hourly rate of £6.75 (obviously this would be higher in London). A separate claim for improvements in various service conditions would be submitted as part of the review of the Green Book which has been jointly agreed.
Branches will have a short period to consult upon the offer and may wish to consider whether a flat rate claim would not be better than a percentage. A flat rate increase of £1,400 would pretty much achieve the uprating of the minimum hourly rate whilst distributing the benefits to all lower paid workers not just the lowest paid.
Whatever claim we settle upon the good news is that the intention is to lodge the claim in January with a view to taking a decision on the employers’ offer after 31 March. So we need to be preparing for strike action now.
Finally, congratulations to Croydon UNISON and their Branch Secretary Malcolm Cambell for securing an agreement on the pay and grading review (and to David Eggmore, Chair of the Executive for getting us through most of our Agenda this morning!)
Two visitors from the Barnet branch kicked off a positive discussion about support for the long running Fremantle dispute. The Committee agreed to congratulate the branch and the strikers on sustaining their dispute and to call for support for the rally at the House of Commons on 11 December and for Early Day Motion 276.
The Committee also discussed the disgraceful victimisation of Michael Gavan, Chair of Newham UNISON local government branch. It was reported that Michael’s claim for interim relief at the employment tribunal will be heard on Friday 14 November and that the Newham Branch Committee will this evening be considering whether to call for further strike action in advance of that hearing. The Committee gave its full support to UNISON’s campaign for Michael’s reinstatement and gave in principle support to any further requests for strike action which the branch may make.
The Committee also agreed to encourage a positive approach to identifying ways in which financial support can be given to victimised activists.
The Committee went on to debate the process whereby requests from branches for industrial action ballots are considered. This is clearly unsatisfactory and gives rise to avoidable delays and the Executive agreed to refer the question to the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee. Time will tell whether this will lead to any positive progress. Branches may need to consider how to put motions to National Delegate Conference to expedite industrial action requests.
The other main item of business which I should report in the time available concerns our pay claim for 2008. Branches should shortly receive a draft claim agreed by the UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee on 28 November, this is for 6% and substantial progress to achieve UNISON’s (national) objective of a minimum hourly rate of £6.75 (obviously this would be higher in London). A separate claim for improvements in various service conditions would be submitted as part of the review of the Green Book which has been jointly agreed.
Branches will have a short period to consult upon the offer and may wish to consider whether a flat rate claim would not be better than a percentage. A flat rate increase of £1,400 would pretty much achieve the uprating of the minimum hourly rate whilst distributing the benefits to all lower paid workers not just the lowest paid.
Whatever claim we settle upon the good news is that the intention is to lodge the claim in January with a view to taking a decision on the employers’ offer after 31 March. So we need to be preparing for strike action now.
Finally, congratulations to Croydon UNISON and their Branch Secretary Malcolm Cambell for securing an agreement on the pay and grading review (and to David Eggmore, Chair of the Executive for getting us through most of our Agenda this morning!)
Good luck Karen!
Good luck to Karen Reissman for her appeal hearing today! I am pleased to see the strong support for Karen leading the news items on the UNISON website. Karen has been victimised and sacked for defending our National Health Service from privatisation.
In a first for this blog I will quote the words of our Assistant General Secretary Bob Abberley;
"A trade union is like a family. And when you attack one, you attack us all. [The employers] need to know that in this case, because they've attacked one of our family, we are going to kick them back, good and hard."
Support Karen now by asking your MP to sign Early Day Motion 276! And don’t forget – if you can be in London on Tuesday 11 December – to support the rally at the House of Commons.
In a first for this blog I will quote the words of our Assistant General Secretary Bob Abberley;
"A trade union is like a family. And when you attack one, you attack us all. [The employers] need to know that in this case, because they've attacked one of our family, we are going to kick them back, good and hard."
Support Karen now by asking your MP to sign Early Day Motion 276! And don’t forget – if you can be in London on Tuesday 11 December – to support the rally at the House of Commons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
