That said, I'm disappointed at the tone of the report, and by what it tells us about thinking in some quarters about the role of trade union leadership in relation to our current and coming struggles.
Our rapporteur (who will in my mind I fear always be "the other" Glenn)(and for whose bid for the NEC a bell tolled most unfortunately) is critical of those who tried and failed to commit the SGE to supporting the sensible (and unanimous) decision of the Executive of the National Union of Teachers to prepare to ballot for strike action in defence of pensions (thereby implementing the very policy to which our General Secretary committed UNISON at our Conference in June).
I will pass by the implicitly perjorative references in the report to the "minority" stautus of those who lose a vote - although any union rep who is not sufficiently confident to be the one person in the room who is right (whilst respecting the right of the majority to be wrong) lacks the strength we will need from our leaders over coming years.
What troubles me more is the view, presented strongly in this report, that the role of a leader is to reflect the views of members (rather like a mirror).
Therefore if we know today that - were they asked today - the majority of our members would not jump at the chance of joining the NUT on strike to defend our pensions in the Spring Term, it follows that we must argue against any such proposal (even whilst agonising about how hard it is to be "democratic" and reflect the views of members when these are less forthright than our own).
I fail to see what is "leadership" in that approach. It sounds and feels a lot more like a, fairly passive "followership".
Now clearly, if you want to lead, you cannot do so by being so far ahead of the people you are leading that they can't see you. This is my worry about - for example - calls for a General Strike which we know isn't going to happen any time soon (however much we may wish otherwise).
However, if you aspire to leadership you do need to be a step or two (rather than ten) in front of the people you are hoping to lead - and that means that it is certainly not your role simply to reflect members' opinions back at them.
Rather it is the role of a union leader (from a shop steward all the way down to General Secretary) to analyse the interests of the members you represent, formulate a strategy to advance those interest and then advocate that strategy to those members.
You may or may not persuade members that your assessment of their interests and of the action they should therefore take is correct, but at least by doing so you will be discharging your duty as a leader.
In his Conference speech in June, Dave Prentis correctly identified the issue of pensions as one on which we could take national action to inflict a defeat upon the Government. He rightly urged us to take national action in our own interests.
It's a shame that Dave's supporters are now backing away from our General Secretary's accurate analysis.
What we need now is leadership which is less like a mirror and more like a beacon.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
4 comments:
If only the members were as left wing as the leaders, Jon (excuse my irony).
I've put this on the SOLIDARITY Magazine site Jon.
I must be reading this wrong, because you seem to be arguing that UNISON is a member-led union, except when the members disagree with you, when it should be an NUT executive- led union. Surely that can't be right?
This is from Glenn Williams, the author of the post on UNISON Active with which I take issue in the main post;
As the author of the article cited by Jon I can only hope that your readers notice and accept that at no stage do I suggest anything other than total commitment to a national ballot and action in defence of Pension attacks and the rest of the assault on the public sector. My concern and objective are in seeking to ensure we have our members sufficiently informed and angry enought to follow our lead. The issue Jon has made this into is one of ‘leadership v mirroring’, but I believe the two are interdependent and not the polarised extremes he suggests. To be a good leader you have to have a following and to have a following you have to convince the membership of your credibility and the aims of any action. In relation to Pensions, my point is that we in our union are at present miles away, not just measured in steps as Jon indicates, from being ready to take persuasive industrial action, but I am definitely not suggesting it should not be taken. As a Branch Secretary presently involved in balloting our members in response to the threat to cut 1,000 jobs there is a real battle of hearts and minds to be won in our branch – that has commenced and we realise it will take time. Simply to have moved immediately to industrial action would have been counter productive as this step should only be taken when, having advised and mobilised the membership, we take a lead into the action that will undoubtedly be required to shift the ideologically driven attacks on public services.
The reduction a comprehensive report to a single issue and subsequent narrow definition of ‘leadership’ misrepresents that report, the notion of being a member-led union and my personal politics. I am grateful to seek to correct this view – I did try to do the same on Jon’s actual site but it would not allow me to due to technical difficulties.
Having posted Glenn's response I will only add that I wasn't meaning in my post to do justice to the whole of his report (to which I had linked).
I wanted to make the point about the role of leadership - and as a Branch Secretary also on the brink of a strike ballot I can empathise.
Glenn's measured response distinguishes him from anon above, who seems to miss the point that, if we have a ballot then that is the gold standard of member leadership, since members actually make a decision.
Like Glenn I want to win a battle of hearts and minds in my branch (and throughout the Union). In order to win this battle we need to join it - and we need to take risks.
Post a Comment