The NEC received a report of campaigning work in relation to the National Health Service, including preparations for the demonstration on 3 November. In this regard I was interested to be forwarded a report by an NEC colleague who sits on the Health Service Group Executive. In this report the Health SGE had been told that there was little support for the demonstration in Greater London (which is contrary to the policy agreed almost unanimously at the last Regional Council Annual General Meeting).
There was some debate about what might happen to the demonstration in the event of a General Election being called. The Chair of the Policy Committee made clear that at present it was “full steam ahead” for the demonstration and that all branches should be organising to attend on Saturday 3 November. This is a citizenship issue and it is important that it is not left to our members in health to defend the health service (after all, all of us need the NHS from time to time!)
Because of legal limits on “third party” expenditure during an election period, there would be problems for UNISON if an election was called to take place shortly after 3 November. The President, Norma Stephenson, made clear that she expected that, should this arise, the Union would look to find ways in which the demonstration could continue to go ahead – since many branches had already booked transport and would be likely to turn up anyway!
Since funding for the demonstration is coming from the General Political Fund Committee, which under Rule is autonomous from the NEC as a whole, any branches who may wish to express a view about the importance of this demonstration going ahead may wish to know the membership of that Committee, which is as follows;
James Anthony
Sarah Bradfield
Jane Carolan
Graeme Horn
Maureen Le Marinel
Annette Mansell-Green – Co-Chair
Helen Rose
Alison Shepherd
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Chris Tansley – Co-Chair
Steve Warwick.
I supported the view that the demonstration should go ahead. If the expenditure on the demonstration had to count against money UNISON could spend during the General Election well, we would just have to cut back on support elsewhere!
The clear message from our President was to step up preparations for a really massive demonstration on 3 November.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Review of UNISON Conference 2007
Yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC considered the arrangements for next year's Annual Conference.
The NEC agreed to recommend to the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) the following points for consideration in their review of Conference;
Organising the agenda around “themed” debates was welcome and should continue;
The facility to organise briefings in Conference time, as had been done on equal pay this year, should continue;
Conference should close at 4pm on Friday.
I objected to the last two recommendations as I believe they tend to reduce the amount of time taken up by policy discussion and decision making at the sovereign body of our trade union. I was therefore part of the minority who opposed these recommendations.
Branches can contact their Region to ensure their views are fed into the SOC review of Conference - the price of democracy is of course eternal vigilance...
The NEC agreed to recommend to the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) the following points for consideration in their review of Conference;
Organising the agenda around “themed” debates was welcome and should continue;
The facility to organise briefings in Conference time, as had been done on equal pay this year, should continue;
Conference should close at 4pm on Friday.
I objected to the last two recommendations as I believe they tend to reduce the amount of time taken up by policy discussion and decision making at the sovereign body of our trade union. I was therefore part of the minority who opposed these recommendations.
Branches can contact their Region to ensure their views are fed into the SOC review of Conference - the price of democracy is of course eternal vigilance...
General Secretary's report to UNISON NEC
As always, the General Secretary gave a wide ranging report to yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC in order to cover items not already on the agenda. These included the following;
UNISON will be supporting Saturday’s demonstration in solidarity with the people of Burma, meeting at Millbank at 11am on Saturday 6 October;
Dave Prentis congratulated the Greater London Region on organising the “Slavery, Yesterday, Today but not Tomorrow” event on 17 September, which he had attended;
UNISON have established a telephone hotline to combat racism in the National Health Service;
The Police Community Support Officers in the North West unjustly criticised in the media over the tragic drowning of a child were UNISON members and UNISON was making complaints to the BBC and the Press Complaints Commission about the way they had been treated;
Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, had not won the election to be General Secretary of the Public Services International (PSI) and there were significant concerns about the way the election had been run, which UNISON would be considering;
In reporting from the TUC, the General Secretary mentioned the Fremantle dispute and urged support for the demonstration on Saturday 10 November – at which he said he would try to be in attendance;
It was reported that UNISON had supported the constitutional changes at Labour Party Conference on the basis that these could be reversed in two years time. This had been the position of all the trade unions organised through TULO (the Trade Union Labour Organisation). There was some unexplained amusement when I asked how UNISON actually voted on this at the Conference (perhaps one of our Conference delegates in the Region will be able to explain that!)
UNISON will be supporting Saturday’s demonstration in solidarity with the people of Burma, meeting at Millbank at 11am on Saturday 6 October;
Dave Prentis congratulated the Greater London Region on organising the “Slavery, Yesterday, Today but not Tomorrow” event on 17 September, which he had attended;
UNISON have established a telephone hotline to combat racism in the National Health Service;
The Police Community Support Officers in the North West unjustly criticised in the media over the tragic drowning of a child were UNISON members and UNISON was making complaints to the BBC and the Press Complaints Commission about the way they had been treated;
Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, had not won the election to be General Secretary of the Public Services International (PSI) and there were significant concerns about the way the election had been run, which UNISON would be considering;
In reporting from the TUC, the General Secretary mentioned the Fremantle dispute and urged support for the demonstration on Saturday 10 November – at which he said he would try to be in attendance;
It was reported that UNISON had supported the constitutional changes at Labour Party Conference on the basis that these could be reversed in two years time. This had been the position of all the trade unions organised through TULO (the Trade Union Labour Organisation). There was some unexplained amusement when I asked how UNISON actually voted on this at the Conference (perhaps one of our Conference delegates in the Region will be able to explain that!)
Latest on the LGPS
At yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC we received a report of developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
NEC debates public sector pay
The major discussion on public sector pay at yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC was of course about the local government pay dispute. We considered the unfortunate news that both GMB and TGWU-UNITE members had voted to accept the below-inflation pay increase. However, the point was made that PCS members in the civil service would be likely to take action alongside UNISON local government members.
One piece of good news relates to an administrative difficulty with the strike ballot which largely affects Greater London. A significant number of employers were not notified of the national strike ballot and our members with those employers are not included in the main ballot. However, it has now been agreed to run a secondary ballot for all the omitted employers with the same end date as the main ballot so that, subject to a “YES” vote in both ballots, all members can take action together.
I welcomed this news and was also one of those stressing the possibilities of joint action with PCS. I also expressed disappointment about the A5 strike leaflet, which could have been far better worded. We were assured that the letter from the General Secretary which will accompany the ballot paper is better. Other materials, including presentations and speakers notes are to be issued and branches need to organise meetings and bulletins to members now in order to maximise the turnout and the “YES” vote.
Some colleagues, including fellow London NEC members said that members were not enthusiastic about strike action. However, Dave Prentis, General Secretary said that UNISON had never had a national ballot go against a national recommendation since he had been General Secretary and that, whilst it would be difficult to win the ballot and the dispute, this was what we had to be committed to doing. He said that during the ballot period all officers and lay activists should be cancelling other meetings and getting out there to get the vote out. His encouragement is now online.
John Jones, NEC member representing Water and Environment, made a particular point of expressing the concerns of members in the Environment Agency that more had not been done to criticise the very poor pay offer made to them (at the same time as their Chief Executive was being rewarded with a fat bonus).
One piece of good news relates to an administrative difficulty with the strike ballot which largely affects Greater London. A significant number of employers were not notified of the national strike ballot and our members with those employers are not included in the main ballot. However, it has now been agreed to run a secondary ballot for all the omitted employers with the same end date as the main ballot so that, subject to a “YES” vote in both ballots, all members can take action together.
I welcomed this news and was also one of those stressing the possibilities of joint action with PCS. I also expressed disappointment about the A5 strike leaflet, which could have been far better worded. We were assured that the letter from the General Secretary which will accompany the ballot paper is better. Other materials, including presentations and speakers notes are to be issued and branches need to organise meetings and bulletins to members now in order to maximise the turnout and the “YES” vote.
Some colleagues, including fellow London NEC members said that members were not enthusiastic about strike action. However, Dave Prentis, General Secretary said that UNISON had never had a national ballot go against a national recommendation since he had been General Secretary and that, whilst it would be difficult to win the ballot and the dispute, this was what we had to be committed to doing. He said that during the ballot period all officers and lay activists should be cancelling other meetings and getting out there to get the vote out. His encouragement is now online.
John Jones, NEC member representing Water and Environment, made a particular point of expressing the concerns of members in the Environment Agency that more had not been done to criticise the very poor pay offer made to them (at the same time as their Chief Executive was being rewarded with a fat bonus).
Equal Pay debate at the UNISON NEC
As has been the case for some time the longest debate of the day at yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC was on Equal Pay. The NEC received a confidential and legally privileged report covering a wide range of issues. In the light of continuing litigation against UNISON I cannot provide a fuller report here – but branches can expect to receive continuing guidance on this issue (and in the local government group branches in Greater London were of course invited to a briefing on Monday 1 October). Check the website regularly!
On the separate but related issue of finding resources to fund litigation around Equal Pay we were advised that there has been consultation with Regional Convenors and that a working group was to be established, following which it was likely that there would be presentations to Regional Committees (avid readers of this blog may recollect that this has been on the cards now for the best part of a year but that it has not yet happened).
On the separate but related issue of finding resources to fund litigation around Equal Pay we were advised that there has been consultation with Regional Convenors and that a working group was to be established, following which it was likely that there would be presentations to Regional Committees (avid readers of this blog may recollect that this has been on the cards now for the best part of a year but that it has not yet happened).
UNISON NEC debates recruitment
As always the NEC meeting yesterday began with a report on recruitment.
It was reported to the meeting that poor recruitment earlier in the year means that we face losing members for the first time. The problem is, as always, particularly acute in Greater London as we have the highest turnover of members. There are three elements to how the Union will try to turn this around;
An emergency package of measures has been put in place for each Region to focus on a small number of large branches with low membership density (and therefore the greatest potential for recruitment);
There is to be a continuing focus on encouraging branches to adopt an organising approach, based upon Branch Development Plans;
There will be a focus upon recruitment around the local government pay dispute.
The evidence of the past is that significant boosts to recruitment occur primarily around major disputes – although the NEC was told that it was estimated that “Challenge X” had led to the recruitment of several thousand members who would not otherwise have been recruited and that such efforts were therefore worthwhile. (It is incredibly difficult to assess the accuracy of such claims, as understanding trends in trade union membership is more an art than a science).
It was reported to the meeting that poor recruitment earlier in the year means that we face losing members for the first time. The problem is, as always, particularly acute in Greater London as we have the highest turnover of members. There are three elements to how the Union will try to turn this around;
An emergency package of measures has been put in place for each Region to focus on a small number of large branches with low membership density (and therefore the greatest potential for recruitment);
There is to be a continuing focus on encouraging branches to adopt an organising approach, based upon Branch Development Plans;
There will be a focus upon recruitment around the local government pay dispute.
The evidence of the past is that significant boosts to recruitment occur primarily around major disputes – although the NEC was told that it was estimated that “Challenge X” had led to the recruitment of several thousand members who would not otherwise have been recruited and that such efforts were therefore worthwhile. (It is incredibly difficult to assess the accuracy of such claims, as understanding trends in trade union membership is more an art than a science).
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Loneliness of the long distance NEC meeting...
Today's meeting of the UNISON NEC lasted about twice as long as meetings have been recently - so that's my excuse for not having written up my notes and posted them here yet ;p
Tomorrow morning seems like a good time right now!
Tomorrow morning seems like a good time right now!
UNISON NEC (no live blogging!)
This morning there's a meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council - I'll blog a report here after the event but won't be live blogging as the President has asked me not to.
No doubt we will be discussing the local government pay dispute (I expect some searching questions about fairly unimpressive strike leaflets - and of course mention will be made of the disappointing results of the TGWU-UNITE and GMB consultative ballots (the GMB result is a fairly massive vote to accept a real terms pay cut).
There will also be discussion about the forthcoming demonstration in defence (or is it celebration) of the National Health Service set for 3 November. I understand from an NEC comrade on the Policy Committee that the question "what will we do if there is a General Election on 8 November" is a questions which it is not permissible to ask!
Check back here later in the day and I'll have posted a report.
No doubt we will be discussing the local government pay dispute (I expect some searching questions about fairly unimpressive strike leaflets - and of course mention will be made of the disappointing results of the TGWU-UNITE and GMB consultative ballots (the GMB result is a fairly massive vote to accept a real terms pay cut).
There will also be discussion about the forthcoming demonstration in defence (or is it celebration) of the National Health Service set for 3 November. I understand from an NEC comrade on the Policy Committee that the question "what will we do if there is a General Election on 8 November" is a questions which it is not permissible to ask!
Check back here later in the day and I'll have posted a report.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Public sector pay - some will fight, some will sit this one out
According to an anonymous comment on the last post here UNITE-TGWU members in local government have voted in a consultative ballot to accept the employers' offer.
According to our anymous source; "TGWU members have voted 57% in favour of accepting the local government employers' pay offer. Turnout was 29%."
This would be a disappointment, but hardly a shock. A similar result from the GMB consultative ballot would be no big suprise. UNISON represents the majority of local government workers, the GMB represent a significant minority. UNITE-TGWU have membership in some authorities but are very much the third union in the local government workforce covered by the national negotiations. UNISON activists will be disappointed if we do not have the support of the other unions at the outset of this year's pay fight, but won't in the end allow minorities to dictate to the majority.
If you consult people on the basis that "this is the best we can get by negotiation and you'll have to take a lot of strike action if you want more" without at the same time offering a strategy to win through taking strike action then you won't get trade unionists willing to take action.
I would suggest that the result of the consultative ballot on health service pay in UNISON illustrates this point quite well.
On a day when PCS launched a strike ballot involving more than a quarter of a million civil service members and CWU served notice to Royal Mail for two rounds of 48 hour strike action scheduled to start next week, it is clear that there is scope for united public sector strike action over the Government's pay policy.
It won't be action across the whole of the public sector and it won't involve every union, but there are millions of us who could be mobilised - and if we are we could win and reverse the declining living standards of public sector workers.
According to our anymous source; "TGWU members have voted 57% in favour of accepting the local government employers' pay offer. Turnout was 29%."
This would be a disappointment, but hardly a shock. A similar result from the GMB consultative ballot would be no big suprise. UNISON represents the majority of local government workers, the GMB represent a significant minority. UNITE-TGWU have membership in some authorities but are very much the third union in the local government workforce covered by the national negotiations. UNISON activists will be disappointed if we do not have the support of the other unions at the outset of this year's pay fight, but won't in the end allow minorities to dictate to the majority.
If you consult people on the basis that "this is the best we can get by negotiation and you'll have to take a lot of strike action if you want more" without at the same time offering a strategy to win through taking strike action then you won't get trade unionists willing to take action.
I would suggest that the result of the consultative ballot on health service pay in UNISON illustrates this point quite well.
On a day when PCS launched a strike ballot involving more than a quarter of a million civil service members and CWU served notice to Royal Mail for two rounds of 48 hour strike action scheduled to start next week, it is clear that there is scope for united public sector strike action over the Government's pay policy.
It won't be action across the whole of the public sector and it won't involve every union, but there are millions of us who could be mobilised - and if we are we could win and reverse the declining living standards of public sector workers.
Bloggers block?
Apologies for the dearth of posts this week. Local industrial relations problems are taking up a fair bit of time and attention just now.
I am pleased to hear that colleagues in the Barnet branch have been pressing ahead with the continuing campaign against Fremantle (from whose Chief Executive I have heard nothing further...!)
Next week will be a busy week in UNISON so expect to read more frequent reports :)
I am pleased to hear that colleagues in the Barnet branch have been pressing ahead with the continuing campaign against Fremantle (from whose Chief Executive I have heard nothing further...!)
Next week will be a busy week in UNISON so expect to read more frequent reports :)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as...
I am afraid I haven’t been too well the last few days. Hence the lack of posts.
Mind you words fail me at the performance of the Unions in Bournemouth. Just as we are demonstrating how to use a contemporary resolution at Party Conference to shift the Government we are justifying having allowed Gordon Brown to prevent us ever doing it again.
How much more foolish can we be? (I really shouldn’t ask that question should I, as I won’t like the response…)
Just to be clear – there is no provision of any UNISON rule which would permit delay in the local government strike ballot in the event of a General Election, and there is no need for any further “consultation” or phone calls round to branches about past consultations.
Mind you words fail me at the performance of the Unions in Bournemouth. Just as we are demonstrating how to use a contemporary resolution at Party Conference to shift the Government we are justifying having allowed Gordon Brown to prevent us ever doing it again.
How much more foolish can we be? (I really shouldn’t ask that question should I, as I won’t like the response…)
Just to be clear – there is no provision of any UNISON rule which would permit delay in the local government strike ballot in the event of a General Election, and there is no need for any further “consultation” or phone calls round to branches about past consultations.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Defending Michael Gavan - defending our Union
I was very pleased this evening to attend the UNISON rally at the Stratford Picture House in support of victimised activist – and UNISON Newham Branch Chair – Michael Gavan.
I am not sure I have been on the same platform as Ken Loach before – he was there to introduce his excellent new film “It’s a Free World” and pledged his wholehearted support for Michael. Last time I saw Ken Loach at a UNISON event it was at the Ritzy in Brixton in aid of the Hillingdon hospital strikers!
This sort of innovative initiative is precisely what UNISON needs and it was good that victimised Manchester mental health nurse, Karen Reissman was at the meeting too. It was also good to see a representative of the UNISON Regional Council officers alongside Ken Loach on the platform!
As we move into a period of relatively greater industrial struggle we can anticipate further employer victimisation of activists, and we shall need to find every way we can to defend our brothers and sisters!
For those of you reading this who are - as I am - a Labour Party member, then you need to press your MP to support us on this and to put pressure on the Governnent
I am not sure I have been on the same platform as Ken Loach before – he was there to introduce his excellent new film “It’s a Free World” and pledged his wholehearted support for Michael. Last time I saw Ken Loach at a UNISON event it was at the Ritzy in Brixton in aid of the Hillingdon hospital strikers!
This sort of innovative initiative is precisely what UNISON needs and it was good that victimised Manchester mental health nurse, Karen Reissman was at the meeting too. It was also good to see a representative of the UNISON Regional Council officers alongside Ken Loach on the platform!
As we move into a period of relatively greater industrial struggle we can anticipate further employer victimisation of activists, and we shall need to find every way we can to defend our brothers and sisters!
For those of you reading this who are - as I am - a Labour Party member, then you need to press your MP to support us on this and to put pressure on the Governnent
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A tale of two picket lines (one today and one yet to come!)
This afternoon I attended a protest (not quite a picket line I think) of UNISON staff protesting against a lack of consultation by management within the Union with the staff trade union over proposals for change.
Neither the staff trade unions nor progressive forces within the lay structures wish to oppose constructive change in our Union, but we will not move forward by confrontation with the staff trade unions! I am awaiting an explanation from the Chair of the NEC staffing committee as to what is going on!
I was happy to have the opportunity to stand on a picket line with UNISON staff since we shall have further opportunities very soon. I hear that the UNISON industrial action committee has just agreed to ballot all our local government members for strike action over pay.
The UNISON staff pickets outside Congress House had a really good idea - a union account with the local cafe so that pickets can get tea and coffee!
UNISON local government activists take note!
Update on 20 September about the local government pay dispute – the decision on the local government strike ballot is being reported here, as follows;
"UNISON is to ask its 850,000 local government members whether they're prepared to take action over this year's low pay offer" – well, yes, obviously we will need a vigorous campaign for a “YES” vote based upon a strategy to win by taking action alongside PCS and other public sector workers.
Further update on the UNISON staff protest yesterday – the Chair of the Staffing Committee has kindly sent me a copy of a circular sent to all UNISON staff. He has asked me to keep it confidential to UNISON (as it has only been circulated to over a thousand staff…) so won’t blog the details here. He goes on to say;
“I understand you were supporting the 'dispute ' today.
I would have hoped you would be supporting the increase in staff we are seeking to employ in UNISON and the impetus this will give to our organising capabilities.”
Of course there need be no contradiction between supporting positive change in the Union and also supporting appropriate consultation with the staff trade unions – the leaflets being given out by the staff made clear that they have no principled opposition to the staffing changes being proposed.
I understand that a meeting will take place today and hope that a resolution can swiftly be found. We need all our energies for the local government pay dispute now!
Neither the staff trade unions nor progressive forces within the lay structures wish to oppose constructive change in our Union, but we will not move forward by confrontation with the staff trade unions! I am awaiting an explanation from the Chair of the NEC staffing committee as to what is going on!
I was happy to have the opportunity to stand on a picket line with UNISON staff since we shall have further opportunities very soon. I hear that the UNISON industrial action committee has just agreed to ballot all our local government members for strike action over pay.
The UNISON staff pickets outside Congress House had a really good idea - a union account with the local cafe so that pickets can get tea and coffee!
UNISON local government activists take note!
Update on 20 September about the local government pay dispute – the decision on the local government strike ballot is being reported here, as follows;
"UNISON is to ask its 850,000 local government members whether they're prepared to take action over this year's low pay offer" – well, yes, obviously we will need a vigorous campaign for a “YES” vote based upon a strategy to win by taking action alongside PCS and other public sector workers.
Further update on the UNISON staff protest yesterday – the Chair of the Staffing Committee has kindly sent me a copy of a circular sent to all UNISON staff. He has asked me to keep it confidential to UNISON (as it has only been circulated to over a thousand staff…) so won’t blog the details here. He goes on to say;
“I understand you were supporting the 'dispute ' today.
I would have hoped you would be supporting the increase in staff we are seeking to employ in UNISON and the impetus this will give to our organising capabilities.”
Of course there need be no contradiction between supporting positive change in the Union and also supporting appropriate consultation with the staff trade unions – the leaflets being given out by the staff made clear that they have no principled opposition to the staffing changes being proposed.
I understand that a meeting will take place today and hope that a resolution can swiftly be found. We need all our energies for the local government pay dispute now!
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Development and Organisation Committee report
Today I attended a meeting of the UNISON Development and Organisation Committee. Here are the edited highlights;
(right, that was the edited highlights, now for the report…)
We began with a report on amendments to UNISON’s objectives. This is clearly a hot topic for those who work in the organisation – although they had better work out as we apparently want to “re-profile” our staff, which sounds to me worryingly like compulsory plastic surgery!
As always the meeting then started properly with a report on recruitment. Recruitment figures this year are disappointing and the report before us concluded (as always) that we must try harder (anyone remember Boxer in Animal Farm?)
More positively we were assured that when (I don’t think it is if) the Industrial Action Committee tomorrow approves the national strike ballot in local government there will be targeted recruitment materials so we can make the most of an excellent opportunity. The Union is also looking to join the twenty first century with a facility to join online, although this will inevitably lead to more members paying direct debit (and therefore ending up in the wrong branches over time unless we can crack getting membership details updated regularly).
We also received a report on Learning and Organising (including the news that we will be bidding for money from the next tranche of the Union Learning Fund) and a report on “leadership development training” for members of the National Executive Council. Since this will cover, amongst other things, the vexed question of “collective responsibility” I doubt I shall be included in the first wave of NEC members to be developed as leaders. I shall try to be brave in the face of such disappointment.
The Committee heard the latest news about the RMS (that is the “Replacement Membership System” although we don’t call it that any more) – apparently in 2009 we will implement a new membership system (will it be called the RRMS???)
Frank Hont, Regional Secretary from the North West Region and former Chair of the Committee in his days as a lay activist, attended to report on the work underway to implement Conference decisions on the review of branch and service group structures. This is now going to be carried forward by named senior officials working to a small working group of NEC members and other leading lay activists. I sought and received assurances that there would actually be discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee as this work was carried forward and will let you know in due course what weight I have attached to those assurances.
We then received a report on the CASE management system, and were told that there is now enough information on the system for it to produce meaningful reports about the casework being undertaken by the Union at Regional level – we were invited to make suggestions about what reports and information we wanted to see and I would welcome suggestions from UNISON members to pass on to the relevant officials.
The Committee also received a report about the integration of the computer systems used by UNISON Welfare and the RMS – I was assured that confidential welfare information would not appear on the RMS.
A hardy perennial appeared in bloom as we received the first report on proportionality and fair representation at Conference – I shall return to this topic in greater length when we debate it (at greater length) in November. A worrying dip in the representation of black members at our Conference suggests to me that our current prescriptive approach is not delivering fair representation.
The Committee then received a bizarre report from officers advising us that even though the National Disabled Members Committee had not made a reference to us about a controversial decision of the National Disabled Members Conference we ought nevertheless to take a decision about the matter in hand. Happily we did not. The issue concerned extending the deaf members’ caucus within the Disabled Members self-organised group to include those who are hearing impaired.
I felt that we needed to be far more respectful of the decisions of a self-organised group than we were being invited to be and was happy that the decision was deferred.
If members of the self-organised group want to know what was said about their Conference decisions by an official please do get in touch!
Following a report about UNISON’s response to consultation on the legal changes required by ASLEF’s important European legal victory over the question of fascists in our unions, the Committee then turned to consider the cases of branches under Regional supervision.
It is positive that we are now receiving reports about this matter, but the fact that the Leeds local government branch remains under supervision attracted considerable adverse comment and with good cause. I remain perplexed at the suggestion that a branch under regional supervision could somehow have behaved in a way of which the Region disapproves and look forward to the full report which we were promised for the next meeting.
A longer debate then ensued on “Chairs action” around the decision of the Chair (and the Presidential team) to endorse contentious advice to health branches and activists that they ought not to campaign against (or I suppose for) the pay offer in the light of a decision by the Service Group Executive to make no recommendation.
Several members of the Committee explained at some length how daft it was to use the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines against – as we saw it – the spirit and the letter of the relevant Union Rules which safeguard the right to campaign. After a spirited defence of the “official” position from an official (who said that the Union should “speak with one voice”) one of the lay members of the Committee was finally shamed into supporting the position then endorsed by a majority, which is that the Committee noted what the Chair had done.
Any trade union that can only speak with “one voice” is a trade union that will not thrive and does not deserve to survive. Our Rules specifically defend the right to campaign to change policy and that must mean a right to express different views – I am astonished by the idea that our members will somehow be confused by the fact that there are differences of opinion in our Union and I am afraid that I was drawn into making disparaging remarks about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
I know – that’s no way to win friends and influence people at Mabledon Place…
Oh dear…
(right, that was the edited highlights, now for the report…)
We began with a report on amendments to UNISON’s objectives. This is clearly a hot topic for those who work in the organisation – although they had better work out as we apparently want to “re-profile” our staff, which sounds to me worryingly like compulsory plastic surgery!
As always the meeting then started properly with a report on recruitment. Recruitment figures this year are disappointing and the report before us concluded (as always) that we must try harder (anyone remember Boxer in Animal Farm?)
More positively we were assured that when (I don’t think it is if) the Industrial Action Committee tomorrow approves the national strike ballot in local government there will be targeted recruitment materials so we can make the most of an excellent opportunity. The Union is also looking to join the twenty first century with a facility to join online, although this will inevitably lead to more members paying direct debit (and therefore ending up in the wrong branches over time unless we can crack getting membership details updated regularly).
We also received a report on Learning and Organising (including the news that we will be bidding for money from the next tranche of the Union Learning Fund) and a report on “leadership development training” for members of the National Executive Council. Since this will cover, amongst other things, the vexed question of “collective responsibility” I doubt I shall be included in the first wave of NEC members to be developed as leaders. I shall try to be brave in the face of such disappointment.
The Committee heard the latest news about the RMS (that is the “Replacement Membership System” although we don’t call it that any more) – apparently in 2009 we will implement a new membership system (will it be called the RRMS???)
Frank Hont, Regional Secretary from the North West Region and former Chair of the Committee in his days as a lay activist, attended to report on the work underway to implement Conference decisions on the review of branch and service group structures. This is now going to be carried forward by named senior officials working to a small working group of NEC members and other leading lay activists. I sought and received assurances that there would actually be discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee as this work was carried forward and will let you know in due course what weight I have attached to those assurances.
We then received a report on the CASE management system, and were told that there is now enough information on the system for it to produce meaningful reports about the casework being undertaken by the Union at Regional level – we were invited to make suggestions about what reports and information we wanted to see and I would welcome suggestions from UNISON members to pass on to the relevant officials.
The Committee also received a report about the integration of the computer systems used by UNISON Welfare and the RMS – I was assured that confidential welfare information would not appear on the RMS.
A hardy perennial appeared in bloom as we received the first report on proportionality and fair representation at Conference – I shall return to this topic in greater length when we debate it (at greater length) in November. A worrying dip in the representation of black members at our Conference suggests to me that our current prescriptive approach is not delivering fair representation.
The Committee then received a bizarre report from officers advising us that even though the National Disabled Members Committee had not made a reference to us about a controversial decision of the National Disabled Members Conference we ought nevertheless to take a decision about the matter in hand. Happily we did not. The issue concerned extending the deaf members’ caucus within the Disabled Members self-organised group to include those who are hearing impaired.
I felt that we needed to be far more respectful of the decisions of a self-organised group than we were being invited to be and was happy that the decision was deferred.
If members of the self-organised group want to know what was said about their Conference decisions by an official please do get in touch!
Following a report about UNISON’s response to consultation on the legal changes required by ASLEF’s important European legal victory over the question of fascists in our unions, the Committee then turned to consider the cases of branches under Regional supervision.
It is positive that we are now receiving reports about this matter, but the fact that the Leeds local government branch remains under supervision attracted considerable adverse comment and with good cause. I remain perplexed at the suggestion that a branch under regional supervision could somehow have behaved in a way of which the Region disapproves and look forward to the full report which we were promised for the next meeting.
A longer debate then ensued on “Chairs action” around the decision of the Chair (and the Presidential team) to endorse contentious advice to health branches and activists that they ought not to campaign against (or I suppose for) the pay offer in the light of a decision by the Service Group Executive to make no recommendation.
Several members of the Committee explained at some length how daft it was to use the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines against – as we saw it – the spirit and the letter of the relevant Union Rules which safeguard the right to campaign. After a spirited defence of the “official” position from an official (who said that the Union should “speak with one voice”) one of the lay members of the Committee was finally shamed into supporting the position then endorsed by a majority, which is that the Committee noted what the Chair had done.
Any trade union that can only speak with “one voice” is a trade union that will not thrive and does not deserve to survive. Our Rules specifically defend the right to campaign to change policy and that must mean a right to express different views – I am astonished by the idea that our members will somehow be confused by the fact that there are differences of opinion in our Union and I am afraid that I was drawn into making disparaging remarks about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
I know – that’s no way to win friends and influence people at Mabledon Place…
Oh dear…
Monday, September 17, 2007
Industrial action committee to meet Wednesday
The decision of the UNISON NJC Committee to request an industrial action ballot has now been endorsed by the Service Group Executive for Local Government and will go forward to the Industrial Action Committee of the NEC.
I am afraid that I am not a member of that Committee having not been elected to it by my NEC colleagues – so there is no point lobbying me about this decision!
The Industrial Action Committee will have to choose whether to endorse the views of the elected representatives of our largest Service Group, reflecting the will of the Service Group Conference and offering an excellent opportunity to recruit and organise members around a fight against a below-inflation pay rise.
There may be those who feel that the cost of an industrial action ballot is a million pounds, that really our members ought to have been consulted for a third time on marginal changes to a poor offer, and that the job of union leadership is not to offer a decisive lead but rather a warm welcome to a change of tone at Number 10 Downing Street.
I shouldn’t think that the latter will hold sway, but the great thing about a lay led Union is that ordinary members like you and me get to make the decisions – and other ordinary members can express the views of our branches directly to the decision makers.
So here is the membership of the Industrial Action Committee in case you wish to contact them;
Sarah Barwick
Susan Brearley
Louise Couling
Emma Goodall
Moz Greenshields
Diana Leach
Angela Lynes (Chair)
Ann Macmillan Wood
Annette Mansell-Green
Stephen Mead (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Samantha Selon
Fiona Smith
Irene Stacey
Norma Stephenson
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Jean Thorpe
Roger Bannister
Jim Burnett
Mike Hayes
Colm Magee
Bob Oram
I am afraid that I am not a member of that Committee having not been elected to it by my NEC colleagues – so there is no point lobbying me about this decision!
The Industrial Action Committee will have to choose whether to endorse the views of the elected representatives of our largest Service Group, reflecting the will of the Service Group Conference and offering an excellent opportunity to recruit and organise members around a fight against a below-inflation pay rise.
There may be those who feel that the cost of an industrial action ballot is a million pounds, that really our members ought to have been consulted for a third time on marginal changes to a poor offer, and that the job of union leadership is not to offer a decisive lead but rather a warm welcome to a change of tone at Number 10 Downing Street.
I shouldn’t think that the latter will hold sway, but the great thing about a lay led Union is that ordinary members like you and me get to make the decisions – and other ordinary members can express the views of our branches directly to the decision makers.
So here is the membership of the Industrial Action Committee in case you wish to contact them;
Sarah Barwick
Susan Brearley
Louise Couling
Emma Goodall
Moz Greenshields
Diana Leach
Angela Lynes (Chair)
Ann Macmillan Wood
Annette Mansell-Green
Stephen Mead (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Samantha Selon
Fiona Smith
Irene Stacey
Norma Stephenson
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Jean Thorpe
Roger Bannister
Jim Burnett
Mike Hayes
Colm Magee
Bob Oram
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Lessons to learn from the RMT
Congratulations to my friend and comrade George Binette from the Camden UNISON Branch for his reasoned defence of Bob Crow and the RMT on today’s Observer letter page.
George makes the well-founded point that while commentators such as Will Hutton denounce Bob Crow as a dinosaur, the RMT are growing at a pace which far outshines that of most other trade unions.
For UNISON members the lesson that a combative approach to the defence of members interests is one which helps a trade union to grow is one which our leadership would do well to learn. (Incidentally, the RMT give full benefits from the point at which a member joins, which might give us pause for thought next time we debate Rule K at Conference?)
The major boosts in UNISON membership growth over the last decade have been around major national disputes on pay and pensions. Now that we are moving to strike action over local government pay we have an opportunity for further growth.
Let’s hope the Industrial Action Committee give us that opportunity!
George makes the well-founded point that while commentators such as Will Hutton denounce Bob Crow as a dinosaur, the RMT are growing at a pace which far outshines that of most other trade unions.
For UNISON members the lesson that a combative approach to the defence of members interests is one which helps a trade union to grow is one which our leadership would do well to learn. (Incidentally, the RMT give full benefits from the point at which a member joins, which might give us pause for thought next time we debate Rule K at Conference?)
The major boosts in UNISON membership growth over the last decade have been around major national disputes on pay and pensions. Now that we are moving to strike action over local government pay we have an opportunity for further growth.
Let’s hope the Industrial Action Committee give us that opportunity!
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Fremantle strikes on 20 September
Congratulations to Barnet UNISON for this excellent pictorial report of the visit of Fremantle activists to the TUC. The Fremantle dispute is very much still on – and back on the Labourstart website, as the Internet Service Provider has found the campaign not to be defamatory.
Good luck to the strikers for their next day of strike action on 20 September.
I thought I would share my correspondence with Fremantle Chief Executive, Carole Sawyer, to whom I wrote on 6 September as follows;
“Your conduct in cutting the pay of your workers, sacking Andrew Rogers and seeking to silence your critics is disgraceful.You are clearly not a fit person to be involved in the provision of vital public services to vulnerable people and I very much hope that you will have the decency to consider your position.”
She replied the following day;
“Thank you for your e-mail. Your concerns relate to misinformation and deliberately misleading information on the Labourstart and Unison web pages.
Specifically
Pay has not been cut – salaries have been frozen for up to 3 years at April 2007 levels
No changes have been made to the pensions – staff continue to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and we continue to make employer contributions as set by the actuary (currently over 20%)
The working week for ex LBB staff is unchanged at 36 hours full time equivalent
Occupational sick pay entitlement changed from April 2007 and is now up to 3 months at full pay
The necessary changes are to ensure that the future costs of the services can be met from the resources available. This protects both vulnerable service users and staff by ensuring the continuation of services. The Fremantle Trust is a registered charity (not a private company as alleged by Labourstart).
These are not easy decisions and we spent over a year consulting with staff and unions before any changes were made. Fremantle continues to offer an industry leading pay and benefits package – including enhanced payments for weekend, night and bank holiday working, generous occupational sick pay, protected pensions and pay rates well ahead of the industry norms.
With respect to Mr Rogers he was dismissed for gross misconduct after an extensive investigation and after the panel had spent 5 hours reviewing all the evidence (including that of Mr Rogers and his representative). There is an appeal process which I encourage Mr Rogers to follow – I am not prepared to comment further at this stage as I do not wish to jeopardise this process.”
I sent a further response having checked with Barnet UNISON, as follows;
I am indebted to you for your response but regret that its contents suggest that you have a limited grasp of employee relations issues.
You say that you have not cut the pay of your employees. However a pay freeze is a pay cut in real terms. Also you have reduced enhancements upon which low paid staff working unsocial hours rely for their overall earnings and have reduced annual leave, thereby requiring staff to work more time for no more money (further reducing the hourly rate). Quite how you consider that the allegation of a pay cut is "deliberately misleading" is beyond me.
You say that no changes have been made to pensions. This is at best disingenuous since the changes which you have made will impact upon the pensionable earnings of employees in their last year of service to the future detriment of their pension. If you do not understand this then I strongly recommend that you consider attending some training on the operation of final salary pension schemes.
You say that the working week is unchanged (whereas I believe you originally intended to increase it). However because of the reductions which you have made in enhancements staff are having to work longer hours in order to maintain their earnings, to the detriment of their family and personal lives and to work life balance.
You are pleased to state that occupational sick pay is "now" up to three months at full pay. The standard for local government workers is up to six months at full pay followed by six months at half pay.
It really is neither here nor there that you are a "registered charity" nor that you may be paying above the (appallingly low) "industry norms". You are part of a process whereby services which used to be directly provided by local authorities, and whose staff enjoyed the terms and conditions negotiated for local government workers are now provided by staff whose terms and conditions are less favourable.
You are part of the process of driving down the costs of public service provision at the expense of often low paid workers. I appreciate that you may find this shameful.”
I finished by inviting her to reconsider the statements which she had made, but have heard nothing further for more than a week. If I get a further response I will amend this post to include it.
Good luck to the strikers for their next day of strike action on 20 September.
I thought I would share my correspondence with Fremantle Chief Executive, Carole Sawyer, to whom I wrote on 6 September as follows;
“Your conduct in cutting the pay of your workers, sacking Andrew Rogers and seeking to silence your critics is disgraceful.You are clearly not a fit person to be involved in the provision of vital public services to vulnerable people and I very much hope that you will have the decency to consider your position.”
She replied the following day;
“Thank you for your e-mail. Your concerns relate to misinformation and deliberately misleading information on the Labourstart and Unison web pages.
Specifically
Pay has not been cut – salaries have been frozen for up to 3 years at April 2007 levels
No changes have been made to the pensions – staff continue to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and we continue to make employer contributions as set by the actuary (currently over 20%)
The working week for ex LBB staff is unchanged at 36 hours full time equivalent
Occupational sick pay entitlement changed from April 2007 and is now up to 3 months at full pay
The necessary changes are to ensure that the future costs of the services can be met from the resources available. This protects both vulnerable service users and staff by ensuring the continuation of services. The Fremantle Trust is a registered charity (not a private company as alleged by Labourstart).
These are not easy decisions and we spent over a year consulting with staff and unions before any changes were made. Fremantle continues to offer an industry leading pay and benefits package – including enhanced payments for weekend, night and bank holiday working, generous occupational sick pay, protected pensions and pay rates well ahead of the industry norms.
With respect to Mr Rogers he was dismissed for gross misconduct after an extensive investigation and after the panel had spent 5 hours reviewing all the evidence (including that of Mr Rogers and his representative). There is an appeal process which I encourage Mr Rogers to follow – I am not prepared to comment further at this stage as I do not wish to jeopardise this process.”
I sent a further response having checked with Barnet UNISON, as follows;
I am indebted to you for your response but regret that its contents suggest that you have a limited grasp of employee relations issues.
You say that you have not cut the pay of your employees. However a pay freeze is a pay cut in real terms. Also you have reduced enhancements upon which low paid staff working unsocial hours rely for their overall earnings and have reduced annual leave, thereby requiring staff to work more time for no more money (further reducing the hourly rate). Quite how you consider that the allegation of a pay cut is "deliberately misleading" is beyond me.
You say that no changes have been made to pensions. This is at best disingenuous since the changes which you have made will impact upon the pensionable earnings of employees in their last year of service to the future detriment of their pension. If you do not understand this then I strongly recommend that you consider attending some training on the operation of final salary pension schemes.
You say that the working week is unchanged (whereas I believe you originally intended to increase it). However because of the reductions which you have made in enhancements staff are having to work longer hours in order to maintain their earnings, to the detriment of their family and personal lives and to work life balance.
You are pleased to state that occupational sick pay is "now" up to three months at full pay. The standard for local government workers is up to six months at full pay followed by six months at half pay.
It really is neither here nor there that you are a "registered charity" nor that you may be paying above the (appallingly low) "industry norms". You are part of a process whereby services which used to be directly provided by local authorities, and whose staff enjoyed the terms and conditions negotiated for local government workers are now provided by staff whose terms and conditions are less favourable.
You are part of the process of driving down the costs of public service provision at the expense of often low paid workers. I appreciate that you may find this shameful.”
I finished by inviting her to reconsider the statements which she had made, but have heard nothing further for more than a week. If I get a further response I will amend this post to include it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Auld Lang Syne...
My best intentions to blog regularly at the TUC have been frustrated. I can report exclusively that Congress sang Auld Lang Syne...
In part this blogging failure is because I spent some time supporting the Fremantle workers - and working fruitlessly on the Emergency Motion which was not in the end admitted to the agenda (although the strong support for the dispute by the UNISON delegation at the TUC and from many other General Secretaries and delegates was very positive).
I was very pleased to be able to support an Emergency Motion from the Prison Officers Association today moved by POA President Colin Moses, and expressing support for the POA who face legal threats from the Government - the Union could see fines of half a million quid because their members rightly walked out on strike, and the entire Executive could face dismissal.
All the anodyne rubbish that I heard about a "change of tone" from the new Prime Minister this week is thoroughly exposed by this vicious attack by the Government on a public service trade union. UNISON branches need to be moving resolutions in support of our fellow public servants!
In part this blogging failure is because I spent some time supporting the Fremantle workers - and working fruitlessly on the Emergency Motion which was not in the end admitted to the agenda (although the strong support for the dispute by the UNISON delegation at the TUC and from many other General Secretaries and delegates was very positive).
I was very pleased to be able to support an Emergency Motion from the Prison Officers Association today moved by POA President Colin Moses, and expressing support for the POA who face legal threats from the Government - the Union could see fines of half a million quid because their members rightly walked out on strike, and the entire Executive could face dismissal.
All the anodyne rubbish that I heard about a "change of tone" from the new Prime Minister this week is thoroughly exposed by this vicious attack by the Government on a public service trade union. UNISON branches need to be moving resolutions in support of our fellow public servants!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Blogging interrupted
No time to blog really today I am afraid – I was pleased to spend much of my time with colleagues from the Barnet branch of UNISON who were promoting the Fremantle dispute and getting support from a wide range of fellow trade unionists.
UNISON has now agreed the wording for an Emergency Motion on the dispute which is being submitted to the General Purposes Committee and should be taken this week.
Following last night’s excellent PCS Fringe meeting the crucial debate on public sector pay saw a General Council statement committing us to coordinate industrial action.
UNISON's contribution to the public sector pay campaign will be decided over the next few days - the Local Government Service Group Executive is meeting on Thursday afternoon and the Health Service Group Executive on Friday (following the result of the consultative ballot which will be known by then). The Industrial Action Committee of the NEC is meeting on Wednesday of next week I believe.
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as possible…
UNISON has now agreed the wording for an Emergency Motion on the dispute which is being submitted to the General Purposes Committee and should be taken this week.
Following last night’s excellent PCS Fringe meeting the crucial debate on public sector pay saw a General Council statement committing us to coordinate industrial action.
UNISON's contribution to the public sector pay campaign will be decided over the next few days - the Local Government Service Group Executive is meeting on Thursday afternoon and the Health Service Group Executive on Friday (following the result of the consultative ballot which will be known by then). The Industrial Action Committee of the NEC is meeting on Wednesday of next week I believe.
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as possible…
Monday, September 10, 2007
Perils of live blogging at the TUC
Between the laptop battery and the number of other things which there are to do I can’t keep up a running commentary – but other UNISON comrades are also blogging here and here.
I will however make mention of the debate on slavery, squeezed in at the end of the morning session this morning, and to Colin Moses of the POA in particular who pointed out that the legacy of slavery is with us to this day.
I will however make mention of the debate on slavery, squeezed in at the end of the morning session this morning, and to Colin Moses of the POA in particular who pointed out that the legacy of slavery is with us to this day.
Gordon Brown at the TUC
Here is the report I wrote as I listened to Gordon Brown this morning but couldn’t blog at the time as my battery died… I am not the first UNISON NEC member to blog about the speech!
Gordon Brown has started his address to the TUC by thanking retiring members of the General Council. As someone else whose already blogged this put it this is a transparent attempt to appear to be part of our"family”, our movement.
Brown talks about Burma and Darfur as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
He has now just used the phrase “a British job for every British worker”. This is meant to be the bit of the speech in which he is telling us good things about job creation, but it has some pretty scary echoes.
Then we are told about “stability” this is why public sector workers have to put up with real terms pay cuts.
Overall this sums up the difference between Brown and Blair.
The same basic medicine, but delivered to us with warm – not to say soporific – words rather than overt hostility.
In response most delegates applauded, though many of us did not. A few small unions moved to give a standing ovation but only a handful stood – PCS had the distinction of making a protest, but (in line with our delegation meeting discussion yesterday) UNISON did not.
Update – I have just read this comment from our General Secretary on the Guardian website;
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Brown had delivered a "conciliatory" speech.
"He delivered lots of good news in an attempt to sweeten the bitter pill that was the message about pay discipline," said Mr Prentis.
"Perhaps he hasn't yet gauged the real feeling of public service workers having to bear the brunt of government cost-cutting."
The General Council statement on pay is probably a bit too vague and wordy to help the Prime Minister with gauging our feelings – I hope that we hear from as many unions as possible at this evening’s fringe meeting so that we do get the message across…
Gordon Brown has started his address to the TUC by thanking retiring members of the General Council. As someone else whose already blogged this put it this is a transparent attempt to appear to be part of our"family”, our movement.
Brown talks about Burma and Darfur as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
He has now just used the phrase “a British job for every British worker”. This is meant to be the bit of the speech in which he is telling us good things about job creation, but it has some pretty scary echoes.
Then we are told about “stability” this is why public sector workers have to put up with real terms pay cuts.
Overall this sums up the difference between Brown and Blair.
The same basic medicine, but delivered to us with warm – not to say soporific – words rather than overt hostility.
In response most delegates applauded, though many of us did not. A few small unions moved to give a standing ovation but only a handful stood – PCS had the distinction of making a protest, but (in line with our delegation meeting discussion yesterday) UNISON did not.
Update – I have just read this comment from our General Secretary on the Guardian website;
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Brown had delivered a "conciliatory" speech.
"He delivered lots of good news in an attempt to sweeten the bitter pill that was the message about pay discipline," said Mr Prentis.
"Perhaps he hasn't yet gauged the real feeling of public service workers having to bear the brunt of government cost-cutting."
The General Council statement on pay is probably a bit too vague and wordy to help the Prime Minister with gauging our feelings – I hope that we hear from as many unions as possible at this evening’s fringe meeting so that we do get the message across…
Gordon Brown praises union activists - but does he mean it?
It’s very touching that the first task that the Prime Minister has at the TUC is to give out the awards to union activists. Irene Stacey from Newham UNSION is being honoured for recruiting over 200 members in a year.
Irene’s exemplary work depends also – as she would be the first to acknowledge – on the excellent work of Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan. Michael is suspended at the moment and faces dismissal on trumped up charges.
Now that Gordon has rightly presented Irene with her award, perhaps he could have a word with Newham’s rogue Labour mayor, Robin Wales about ending the attack upon Newham UNISON?
Of is the approach of giving us awards whilst permitting our victimisation a rather fine example of the Government’s attitude to lay trade union activists?
Irene’s exemplary work depends also – as she would be the first to acknowledge – on the excellent work of Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan. Michael is suspended at the moment and faces dismissal on trumped up charges.
Now that Gordon has rightly presented Irene with her award, perhaps he could have a word with Newham’s rogue Labour mayor, Robin Wales about ending the attack upon Newham UNISON?
Of is the approach of giving us awards whilst permitting our victimisation a rather fine example of the Government’s attitude to lay trade union activists?
Brendan Barber opens TUC
Congress opens with the annual address of the TUC General Secretary.
Brendan Barber reports “another year of solid progress for our movement”.
He rightly talks up the unions role in fighting the Far Right, and Congress has applauded ASLEF for winning a crucial legal victory allowing trade unions to exclude fascists.
The applause welcoming the creation of UNITE is perhaps a little more muted, but the applause for the CWU, the POA and the Unions fighting job losses in Remploy is more enthusiastic.
This isn’t just an emotional appeal – unions in dispute are unions doing something for their members.
However it doesn’t take long for us to get on to empty self-congratulation. Apparently in the past year we have put private equity on the map, we have changed Government policy on health service reform and we have made social housing into a political issue. (One out of these three claims is well founded I would have thought?)
There are real political gains (the increase in statutory annual leave, the prohibition on discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the provision of goods and services). However our leaders do have a tendency to talk up our successes in a way which tends to float away from reality…
Moving on, Brendan welcomes Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, warns us about the Tories and is pleased with increasing public spending. However he is expressing firm opposition to the 2% pay policy for the public sector (to good applause). The TUC General Secretary has just said that this centralised attempt to hold down public sector pay “must never be repeated” – he wants the Prime Minister to listen to us about this. Later this morning we will hear if he will do…
Brendan moves on to point out that we can have social justice with economic growth, citing the postwar settlement in Western Europe as an example. This leads, by way of praise for Government policies to tackle poverty to a call for a “new national consensus” in favour of equality, and a Commission to look at the distribution of wealth and income. (How cynical would it be to see the TUC still casting around for a role as brokers of consensus rather than organisers of a combative union movement?)
On the one hand, our TUC General Secretary believes we have a historic opportunity to found a new progressive consensus, on the other hand he is telling us about the examples of super-exploitation of migrant workers which he has encountered over the last while. A fine example of the difference between the experience of dialogue and “listening” to the trade union leadership at the top, and the experience of exploitation of ordinary workers through an economic system thoroughly endorsed and supported by the Government.
It is impossible to disagree with Brendan’s final call for us to “make this country better” but I don’t feel any better informed about how to resolve the contradictions between how our members (and potential members) are being treated by Government and employers on the one hand and the faith which we are being asked to put in working with our adversaries on the other.
Brendan Barber reports “another year of solid progress for our movement”.
He rightly talks up the unions role in fighting the Far Right, and Congress has applauded ASLEF for winning a crucial legal victory allowing trade unions to exclude fascists.
The applause welcoming the creation of UNITE is perhaps a little more muted, but the applause for the CWU, the POA and the Unions fighting job losses in Remploy is more enthusiastic.
This isn’t just an emotional appeal – unions in dispute are unions doing something for their members.
However it doesn’t take long for us to get on to empty self-congratulation. Apparently in the past year we have put private equity on the map, we have changed Government policy on health service reform and we have made social housing into a political issue. (One out of these three claims is well founded I would have thought?)
There are real political gains (the increase in statutory annual leave, the prohibition on discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the provision of goods and services). However our leaders do have a tendency to talk up our successes in a way which tends to float away from reality…
Moving on, Brendan welcomes Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, warns us about the Tories and is pleased with increasing public spending. However he is expressing firm opposition to the 2% pay policy for the public sector (to good applause). The TUC General Secretary has just said that this centralised attempt to hold down public sector pay “must never be repeated” – he wants the Prime Minister to listen to us about this. Later this morning we will hear if he will do…
Brendan moves on to point out that we can have social justice with economic growth, citing the postwar settlement in Western Europe as an example. This leads, by way of praise for Government policies to tackle poverty to a call for a “new national consensus” in favour of equality, and a Commission to look at the distribution of wealth and income. (How cynical would it be to see the TUC still casting around for a role as brokers of consensus rather than organisers of a combative union movement?)
On the one hand, our TUC General Secretary believes we have a historic opportunity to found a new progressive consensus, on the other hand he is telling us about the examples of super-exploitation of migrant workers which he has encountered over the last while. A fine example of the difference between the experience of dialogue and “listening” to the trade union leadership at the top, and the experience of exploitation of ordinary workers through an economic system thoroughly endorsed and supported by the Government.
It is impossible to disagree with Brendan’s final call for us to “make this country better” but I don’t feel any better informed about how to resolve the contradictions between how our members (and potential members) are being treated by Government and employers on the one hand and the faith which we are being asked to put in working with our adversaries on the other.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Support Fremantle workers online
Check out the news from Barnet UNISON!
The online campaign to support Fremantle workers has moved here.
It is very important to back the workers in this dispute against attacks on pay and conditions – particularly because the employer has tried to stop online campaigning by Labourstart. Fremantle didn't enjoy receiving over 8,000 emails.
I received a reply from the Chief Executive seeking to rebut UNISON's criticisms of her organisation. I replied pointing out why she was wrong and inviting her to reconsider. I'll give her a couple of days to reply and then publish the correspondence here.
Following the disgraceful sacking of UNISON Activist Andrew Rogers I hope that we can give a high profile to this important dispute at the TUC this week.
The online campaign to support Fremantle workers has moved here.
It is very important to back the workers in this dispute against attacks on pay and conditions – particularly because the employer has tried to stop online campaigning by Labourstart. Fremantle didn't enjoy receiving over 8,000 emails.
I received a reply from the Chief Executive seeking to rebut UNISON's criticisms of her organisation. I replied pointing out why she was wrong and inviting her to reconsider. I'll give her a couple of days to reply and then publish the correspondence here.
Following the disgraceful sacking of UNISON Activist Andrew Rogers I hope that we can give a high profile to this important dispute at the TUC this week.
Listening for a change of tone...?
I read that we are due to give Gordon Brown a hard time at the TUC…
Well, I hope so.
According to the BBC “most union leaders are quietly hopeful there will be a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10.”
I am not sure that is much to hope for in the face of a public sector pay freeze. The treatment of the prison officers is particularly poor – but the pay offers which we have rejected in local government and on which we are consulting members in health are both below the rate of inflation – meaning that they are a pay cut in real terms.
Brown says this is necessary to control inflation, but has nothing to say about inflation busting increases for the fat cats.
At the same time as holding down our pay Brown is set upon changing Labour Party Conference to limit union influence.
We would have to be incredibly stupid to sit silently by (or worse still, to sit by and applaud) as this is done.
But perhaps we will. Perhaps we will watch as our pay is held down below inflation and our ability to make Labour Party policy is eliminated and shall console ourselves with the hope that there may be “a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10”…
I think that at the TUC we should be very quiet when the great man speaks so we can listen carefully for this change of tone…
Well, I hope so.
According to the BBC “most union leaders are quietly hopeful there will be a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10.”
I am not sure that is much to hope for in the face of a public sector pay freeze. The treatment of the prison officers is particularly poor – but the pay offers which we have rejected in local government and on which we are consulting members in health are both below the rate of inflation – meaning that they are a pay cut in real terms.
Brown says this is necessary to control inflation, but has nothing to say about inflation busting increases for the fat cats.
At the same time as holding down our pay Brown is set upon changing Labour Party Conference to limit union influence.
We would have to be incredibly stupid to sit silently by (or worse still, to sit by and applaud) as this is done.
But perhaps we will. Perhaps we will watch as our pay is held down below inflation and our ability to make Labour Party policy is eliminated and shall console ourselves with the hope that there may be “a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10”…
I think that at the TUC we should be very quiet when the great man speaks so we can listen carefully for this change of tone…
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Unhappy about a strike ballot?
Oh dear!
The local government employers are upset.
Poor dears.
Perhaps if they don’t want us to strike they should think about offering us pay rises which at least keep pace with inflation?
The local government employers are upset.
Poor dears.
Perhaps if they don’t want us to strike they should think about offering us pay rises which at least keep pace with inflation?
Say No to Victimisation
I understand that the season for hunting Grouse (pronounced “Grice” by those who shoot the poor creatures) begins on 12 August.
Unfortunately it seems that it is always open season for reactionary employers to try to victimise trade union representatives.
I was shocked to hear yesterday that cost-cutting and pay-cutting wreckers of North London care homes, Fremantle, have sacked UNISON activist Andrew Rogers (no relation)(except that he is my brother trade unionist!)
Follow that link and you’ll find some immediate action you can take to express solidarity.
Of course it is not just our privatised members who face the risk of victimisation if they stand up for union members – Michael Gavan is under attack by Newham Council, and Karen Reissman by her health trust in Manchester.
If you have a branch or branch Committee meeting coming up, remember to send messages of support to these victimised activists – and donations if you can afford them!
Unfortunately it seems that it is always open season for reactionary employers to try to victimise trade union representatives.
I was shocked to hear yesterday that cost-cutting and pay-cutting wreckers of North London care homes, Fremantle, have sacked UNISON activist Andrew Rogers (no relation)(except that he is my brother trade unionist!)
Follow that link and you’ll find some immediate action you can take to express solidarity.
Of course it is not just our privatised members who face the risk of victimisation if they stand up for union members – Michael Gavan is under attack by Newham Council, and Karen Reissman by her health trust in Manchester.
If you have a branch or branch Committee meeting coming up, remember to send messages of support to these victimised activists – and donations if you can afford them!
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Local Government strike action on the way
Well now it’s official – UNISON has rejected the local government pay offer.
Mind you the official version is not yet a stirring call to arms…
“The NJC committee – UNISON members of the sector’s negotiating body, the national joint council – decided to ask the union’s local government service group executive and industrial action committee to authorise an industrial action ballot.”
Let’s be clear – the Service Group Executive is bound by the policy of the Local Government Conference to reject an offer worth 2.5% - and the Industrial Action Committee, as a SubCommittee of the NEC, must follow the relevant policy of National Delegate Conference.
The decision has been taken and there is no room for doubt or equivocation. Now is the time to mobilise our members for the strike action which cannot now be avoided.
The decision of the National Joint Council Committee was overwhelming and must and will be supported by our Union. Members of the Service Group Executive are being consulted right now on their support for the decision – UNISON activists can always contact their SGE members to check that they are following our agreed policy!
Mind you the official version is not yet a stirring call to arms…
“The NJC committee – UNISON members of the sector’s negotiating body, the national joint council – decided to ask the union’s local government service group executive and industrial action committee to authorise an industrial action ballot.”
Let’s be clear – the Service Group Executive is bound by the policy of the Local Government Conference to reject an offer worth 2.5% - and the Industrial Action Committee, as a SubCommittee of the NEC, must follow the relevant policy of National Delegate Conference.
The decision has been taken and there is no room for doubt or equivocation. Now is the time to mobilise our members for the strike action which cannot now be avoided.
The decision of the National Joint Council Committee was overwhelming and must and will be supported by our Union. Members of the Service Group Executive are being consulted right now on their support for the decision – UNISON activists can always contact their SGE members to check that they are following our agreed policy!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Strike action in local government over pay!
I hear that UNISON's National Joint Council Committee has agreed to proceed with a strike ballot rather than recommend acceptance of the employers' (slightly) improved offer of 2.475% (with 3.4% for those on the lowest point of the pay spine).
If this decision gets the support of the Industrial Action Committee - which it should as it is in line with the policies of Local Government and National Delegate Conference - we could see national strike action in the autumn.
The GMB are holding a delegate meeting on Thursday to consult on the pay offer and have suspended preparations for industrial action in the mean time.
I'll post more information when it is to hand.
Update - the Industrial Action Committee will be meeting soon (I hope it will be next week in Brighton) and a strike ballot in the autumn could see strike action in mid November.
UNISON branches and activists need to prepare our members for the likelihood of strike action.
Membership lists need to be as up to date as possible - particularly the addresses!
We need to recruit all the non-members we can so they don't cross our picket lines (agency workers can join the union too - and any one who is a human being can respect a picket line!)
We need to put a bit of money aside from our inadequate salaries in September and October so we can stand the deductions for strike action when they begin to hit us later in the year.
This will not be an easy fight but it is a very important one.
The NJC decision took a wise decision (by a wide margin) and now we need to knuckle down and get on with the hard work of winning the ballot and then winning the strike.
If this decision gets the support of the Industrial Action Committee - which it should as it is in line with the policies of Local Government and National Delegate Conference - we could see national strike action in the autumn.
The GMB are holding a delegate meeting on Thursday to consult on the pay offer and have suspended preparations for industrial action in the mean time.
I'll post more information when it is to hand.
Update - the Industrial Action Committee will be meeting soon (I hope it will be next week in Brighton) and a strike ballot in the autumn could see strike action in mid November.
UNISON branches and activists need to prepare our members for the likelihood of strike action.
Membership lists need to be as up to date as possible - particularly the addresses!
We need to recruit all the non-members we can so they don't cross our picket lines (agency workers can join the union too - and any one who is a human being can respect a picket line!)
We need to put a bit of money aside from our inadequate salaries in September and October so we can stand the deductions for strike action when they begin to hit us later in the year.
This will not be an easy fight but it is a very important one.
The NJC decision took a wise decision (by a wide margin) and now we need to knuckle down and get on with the hard work of winning the ballot and then winning the strike.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Use the internet to support unions
I am a union activist. So I support workers taking action (for example, here and here). As a blogger I think that we need to use these new (well, not so new) communication technologies to organise in support of our struggles.
We need to find ways to use the internet to highlight working class struggle.
I think that message needs to go out to comrades in the RMT and POA whose websites are not keeping up to date with their recent struggles…
Because I know that it is those Unions who will inspire the best activists at next week's
TUC Congress.
We need to find ways to use the internet to highlight working class struggle.
I think that message needs to go out to comrades in the RMT and POA whose websites are not keeping up to date with their recent struggles…
Because I know that it is those Unions who will inspire the best activists at next week's
TUC Congress.
Brown reaches out to Tories but not trade unions
So two renegade right wing Tories are now advising our “Labour” Government…
I can’t add to the criticisms which have already been expressed.
Or maybe I can.
Someone recently remarked that it was noticeable that Gordon Brown’s big tent politics didn’t seem to include room for any trade unionists.
Will the trade union leadership ever wake up to the need to support an effective opposition to our right-wing Prime Minister??
I’ll spend next week finding out and let you know…
I can’t add to the criticisms which have already been expressed.
Or maybe I can.
Someone recently remarked that it was noticeable that Gordon Brown’s big tent politics didn’t seem to include room for any trade unionists.
Will the trade union leadership ever wake up to the need to support an effective opposition to our right-wing Prime Minister??
I’ll spend next week finding out and let you know…
UNISON Conference barely nine months away...
There’s a lot to think about for UNISON members (as always!)
Is our current Representation Guide really serving UNISON organisation? At present full-time officials and lay activists are banned from representing members at employment tribunals, and the decisions which we take about whether to represent members are taken by lawyers on the legal merits of the case, not on the basis of the interests of our Union and its members.
What about our Industrial Action Procedures? Do these help branches and activists who want to take industrial action – or do they provide a subaltern gate-keeping role for our officials as junior partners in the restrictions placed upon the trade unions by the anti-union laws?
Then there are the Democracy in UNISON guidelines – which do not have the force of either Rule or Regulation in our Union, but which have recently been used to attempt to restrict branches expressing dissent from views which have (formal or informal!) official sanction in member ballots. Is this attempt to stifle debate an appropriate (or an Orwellian) way to use a set of guidelines with the word “democracy” in the title?
And that’s not even thinking about our Rule Book. Are the disciplinary rules (in Rule I) really serving the interests of our members – or do they give too much scope for unjustified action? Should we be looking again at those Rules – or at the Rule which precludes Conference even debating the election of officials?
I wonder also if all activists are happy with the current operation of our complaints procedure?
The NEC (and the people who do our thinking for us) are thinking already about motions for next summer’s Conference. I hope that those of you who are UNISON activists in your branches are doing so also…
Is our current Representation Guide really serving UNISON organisation? At present full-time officials and lay activists are banned from representing members at employment tribunals, and the decisions which we take about whether to represent members are taken by lawyers on the legal merits of the case, not on the basis of the interests of our Union and its members.
What about our Industrial Action Procedures? Do these help branches and activists who want to take industrial action – or do they provide a subaltern gate-keeping role for our officials as junior partners in the restrictions placed upon the trade unions by the anti-union laws?
Then there are the Democracy in UNISON guidelines – which do not have the force of either Rule or Regulation in our Union, but which have recently been used to attempt to restrict branches expressing dissent from views which have (formal or informal!) official sanction in member ballots. Is this attempt to stifle debate an appropriate (or an Orwellian) way to use a set of guidelines with the word “democracy” in the title?
And that’s not even thinking about our Rule Book. Are the disciplinary rules (in Rule I) really serving the interests of our members – or do they give too much scope for unjustified action? Should we be looking again at those Rules – or at the Rule which precludes Conference even debating the election of officials?
I wonder also if all activists are happy with the current operation of our complaints procedure?
The NEC (and the people who do our thinking for us) are thinking already about motions for next summer’s Conference. I hope that those of you who are UNISON activists in your branches are doing so also…
Solidarity with the tube workers
Good luck and solidarity to Underground workers in the RMT striking today – and until Thursday. Workers do not take strike action lightly and if the tube workers feel they need to protect themselves then they deserve the full support of all trade unionists (and all those who call themselves socialists…)(who shouldn’t be having a go at the Union!)
A 72 hour strike seems to be a good way to start a serious dispute. Who do I know who ought to be about to embark upon a serious dispute?
A 72 hour strike seems to be a good way to start a serious dispute. Who do I know who ought to be about to embark upon a serious dispute?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Better blogging...
I am slowly getting the hang of this now that I have been doing it for more than a year :)
I put a poll on the blog asking if people thought 2% was a good enough pay rise for public sector workers and I am glad to say that more than 80% of you thought it wasn't.
Today I have changed the poll to refer specifically to the pay offer in local government.
Having had sight of correspondence from a particularly diligent paid official of the Union earlier today I have to point out that this poll on the blog is a purely personal initiative and does not amount to any form of formal consultation.
No decision having been taken as to whether we will waste all our time by re-running the consultation exercise now that the employers' have finally made the offer we all knew that they were going to make in the first place, it would - apparently - be quite wrong for members to be consulted in advance of any such decision.
Anyway - vote in the poll!
I put a poll on the blog asking if people thought 2% was a good enough pay rise for public sector workers and I am glad to say that more than 80% of you thought it wasn't.
Today I have changed the poll to refer specifically to the pay offer in local government.
Having had sight of correspondence from a particularly diligent paid official of the Union earlier today I have to point out that this poll on the blog is a purely personal initiative and does not amount to any form of formal consultation.
No decision having been taken as to whether we will waste all our time by re-running the consultation exercise now that the employers' have finally made the offer we all knew that they were going to make in the first place, it would - apparently - be quite wrong for members to be consulted in advance of any such decision.
Anyway - vote in the poll!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bought off with 2.5%???
I see Gordon Brown is being accused by the Tories of trying to “buy off” public sector workers in order to avoid controversy in the Labour Party.
I don’t think a pay offer to local government workers which fails to meet the minimum objectives set by our Conference ought to be enough to buy us off!!
Good luck to striking Prison Officers, whose inadequate 2.5% pay award is being staged to save money. Also to UNISON health service members in Sheffield striking against pay cuts.
There is plenty of money for the fat cats. We should be demanding a fair share for public sector workers, resisting Government attempts to divide and rule – and defending our right to speak out in the Labour Party!
I don’t think a pay offer to local government workers which fails to meet the minimum objectives set by our Conference ought to be enough to buy us off!!
Good luck to striking Prison Officers, whose inadequate 2.5% pay award is being staged to save money. Also to UNISON health service members in Sheffield striking against pay cuts.
There is plenty of money for the fat cats. We should be demanding a fair share for public sector workers, resisting Government attempts to divide and rule – and defending our right to speak out in the Labour Party!
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Where now on local government pay?
I find I agree with my comrade and fellow NEC member, Emma Goodall, who thinks that the best response to a pay offer to local government workers which flies in the face of UNISON Local Government Conference policy is a strike ballot.
However there will be those – at the National Joint Council Committee and at the Service Group Executive – who will want to duck a fight because they don’t believe that our members will strike against the new offer. If that is their view then those colleagues should have had the courage to express their opinions at Conference. It is a shame that they did not.
I don’t believe for one moment that our members want to go on strike. No one takes strike action lightly and the sacrifice in terms of lost pay is often greater in the short term than the gains of an improved pay offer. The duty of trade union leadership is to develop strategies to advance our members interests and then to campaign to win the confidence and support of our members to implement those strategies. It is not the role of trade union leadership simply to reflect back to our members their own feelings at any point in time - nor to accept what the employers offer and then come back and sell it to the members.
What will happen if we approach our members now, having twice consulted over the employers’ prevarication, and now consult them on an offer in line with the employers original position (which was to tip local authorities the wink that they should budget for 2.5% on the pay bill, which most duly did)?
If we do so on the basis that “this is the best that can be achieved by negotiation and it will take sustained strike action to get any more” without making a recommendation in line with the agreed policy of the Local Government Service Group Conference then the message that that will give is that the leadership lack confidence in our ability to win a decent pay rise. This is precisely the outcome which would be sought by someone who wanted to undermine the policy agreed at Conference.
Now I agree that this offer is “the best that can be achieved by negotiation” and that “it will take sustained strike action to get any more” – therefore, in the light of the clear policy of the Service Group agreed at Conference, we should ballot for that sustained strike action – if our members don’t want to take that action they can vote “no” and accept the employers’ offer.
If we have a strike ballot the Union will be in a position to campaign in line with Conference policy for a “yes” vote in the ballot, whereas if we run yet another consultation there may be no clear lead – and members will (rightly) read such an abdication of responsibility as a tacit message to accept the offer.
One thing is very clear. Neither the NJC Committee, nor the SGE can change the policy of the Service Group, which is that “we believe that a settlement based on a 2.5% total "envelope" would not be acceptable to our members, however it was packaged. With inflation at an eight year high of 4.8% and further rises in interest rates predicted this would amount to a real and substantial further cut in living standards for Local Government Workers.We further believe that only a substantial campaign of industrial action, wherever possible coordinated with other unions, its likely to produce a successful outcome to this pay campaign.”
Therefore, whether we move, as we should, to a strike ballot or, as I believe we should not, to yet another consultation on this unacceptable offer, branches and individuals must be free to campaign, in either ballot, to persuade members to vote in line with the policy of the Service Group Conference. Which was to issue a clear recommendation for rejection of any offer based on an overall envelope of 2.5% or less.
However there will be those – at the National Joint Council Committee and at the Service Group Executive – who will want to duck a fight because they don’t believe that our members will strike against the new offer. If that is their view then those colleagues should have had the courage to express their opinions at Conference. It is a shame that they did not.
I don’t believe for one moment that our members want to go on strike. No one takes strike action lightly and the sacrifice in terms of lost pay is often greater in the short term than the gains of an improved pay offer. The duty of trade union leadership is to develop strategies to advance our members interests and then to campaign to win the confidence and support of our members to implement those strategies. It is not the role of trade union leadership simply to reflect back to our members their own feelings at any point in time - nor to accept what the employers offer and then come back and sell it to the members.
What will happen if we approach our members now, having twice consulted over the employers’ prevarication, and now consult them on an offer in line with the employers original position (which was to tip local authorities the wink that they should budget for 2.5% on the pay bill, which most duly did)?
If we do so on the basis that “this is the best that can be achieved by negotiation and it will take sustained strike action to get any more” without making a recommendation in line with the agreed policy of the Local Government Service Group Conference then the message that that will give is that the leadership lack confidence in our ability to win a decent pay rise. This is precisely the outcome which would be sought by someone who wanted to undermine the policy agreed at Conference.
Now I agree that this offer is “the best that can be achieved by negotiation” and that “it will take sustained strike action to get any more” – therefore, in the light of the clear policy of the Service Group agreed at Conference, we should ballot for that sustained strike action – if our members don’t want to take that action they can vote “no” and accept the employers’ offer.
If we have a strike ballot the Union will be in a position to campaign in line with Conference policy for a “yes” vote in the ballot, whereas if we run yet another consultation there may be no clear lead – and members will (rightly) read such an abdication of responsibility as a tacit message to accept the offer.
One thing is very clear. Neither the NJC Committee, nor the SGE can change the policy of the Service Group, which is that “we believe that a settlement based on a 2.5% total "envelope" would not be acceptable to our members, however it was packaged. With inflation at an eight year high of 4.8% and further rises in interest rates predicted this would amount to a real and substantial further cut in living standards for Local Government Workers.We further believe that only a substantial campaign of industrial action, wherever possible coordinated with other unions, its likely to produce a successful outcome to this pay campaign.”
Therefore, whether we move, as we should, to a strike ballot or, as I believe we should not, to yet another consultation on this unacceptable offer, branches and individuals must be free to campaign, in either ballot, to persuade members to vote in line with the policy of the Service Group Conference. Which was to issue a clear recommendation for rejection of any offer based on an overall envelope of 2.5% or less.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Employers offers slightly smaller pay cut in real terms - rejoice?
We now have details of a pay offer in local government which is based upon a “pay envelope” of 2.5% (which most Councils budgeted for in the first place and which we totally rejected at UNISON Local Government Conference.)
Clearly UNISON officials knew that this was on the cards and I suppose this explains the lengthy timetable leading up to strike action, about which I expressed some concerns (rather later than other wiser comrades).
If the Retail Price Index was at 4.8% in April then a 2% pay rise was a 2.8% pay cut in real terms, so the pay offer to local government workers is really a 1.4% real pay cut for the lowest paid members on spine point 4 and a 2.225% real terms pay cut for everyone else.
I don’t think that this is acceptable.
Whilst I write this I have to express my disappointment – but not surprise – at the priority given to public sector pay in the report of the TUC General Council to this year’s Congress. (When it gets online it will be here.)
The public sector pay freeze merits one small paragraph deep in the middle of the report. Considerably less space than is given over to the 2012 Olympics!
Our members join unions for many reasons but one of the important ones is to get better pay. Since the public sector is the area of highest union density it is vital to the whole movement that we show that we can deliver decent pay rises for our members.
The TUC General Council know that they will pay lip service to support for the valiant struggle of our brothers and sisters in PCS but that the big unions want to sell below inflation pay increases to our members elsewhere in public services, so they will keep the whole question of public sector pay low key.
But if pay in the most unionised areas of the economy is going to rise more slowly than the less unionised areas then what are we for?
Clearly UNISON officials knew that this was on the cards and I suppose this explains the lengthy timetable leading up to strike action, about which I expressed some concerns (rather later than other wiser comrades).
If the Retail Price Index was at 4.8% in April then a 2% pay rise was a 2.8% pay cut in real terms, so the pay offer to local government workers is really a 1.4% real pay cut for the lowest paid members on spine point 4 and a 2.225% real terms pay cut for everyone else.
I don’t think that this is acceptable.
Whilst I write this I have to express my disappointment – but not surprise – at the priority given to public sector pay in the report of the TUC General Council to this year’s Congress. (When it gets online it will be here.)
The public sector pay freeze merits one small paragraph deep in the middle of the report. Considerably less space than is given over to the 2012 Olympics!
Our members join unions for many reasons but one of the important ones is to get better pay. Since the public sector is the area of highest union density it is vital to the whole movement that we show that we can deliver decent pay rises for our members.
The TUC General Council know that they will pay lip service to support for the valiant struggle of our brothers and sisters in PCS but that the big unions want to sell below inflation pay increases to our members elsewhere in public services, so they will keep the whole question of public sector pay low key.
But if pay in the most unionised areas of the economy is going to rise more slowly than the less unionised areas then what are we for?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
How high is public sector pay on the TUC agenda?
Having been accused of being “sad” because I was waiting for its publication I can now confess to being happy that the Final Agenda for the TUC is online here and here.
Mind you, I would be a lot happier if the other large public service unions were supporting strong motions on the public sector pay freeze alongside PCS and the NUT, surely we don’t still have illusions…
Mind you, I would be a lot happier if the other large public service unions were supporting strong motions on the public sector pay freeze alongside PCS and the NUT, surely we don’t still have illusions…
Soft on pay?
Although regarded in some quarters as a dangerous leftie, I think that those comrades who view me as a bit soft are probably closer to the mark.
Following my earlier post on the national pay dispute, more than one respected friend has queried my stance in simply welcoming the decision of UNISON’s NJC Committee to press ahead with a strike ballot without questioning the enormously lengthy timetable for action.
The employers haven’t shifted their position (as of today’s date) since we lodged our claim and – even if they do offer a “pay envelope” worth 2.5% tomorrow – the most that there are now likely to do is to make an offer which they were hinting at in the spring.
Evidence from elsewhere in the Union is that there are those who are eager to return from the negotiating table bearing a few crumbs only to claim that these are in fact the latest thing in very small cakes for slimmers and we should be grateful for them… (or at least that we ought to try them before deciding we don’t like them). Some ungrateful souls are not taking this advice!
How are we to avoid a similar outcome for local government workers, whose pay failed to keep pace with price inflation from 2004 to April this year and is now set to fall further in real terms?
Certainly we need to keep up the campaigning. So congratulations go to Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary, John Burgess, for getting a petition up on the number 10 website on the question of public sector pay – the Barnet Branch blog is one of the best sources of campaigning material on the pay claim in local government. As John says this may not be as strongly worded as he would wish but we can encourage members to sign it. For those on Facebook there is also a group to join there.
It’s tough campaigning over the summer – but if we don’t get a move on then those who never wanted a fight on pay in the first place will soon be telling us that it is much too close to Christmas to expect members to strike…
We need clear information about what is said at tomorrow’s meeting of the NJC Executive to be circulated as widely and as swiftly as possible so that activists can consider this and lobby members of the NJC Committee ahead of the meeting on 4 September. I hope we can expect to see such information on the UNISON website by Monday morning.
Update on Thursday evening - this post has prompted a response which makes a fair bit of sense.
Following my earlier post on the national pay dispute, more than one respected friend has queried my stance in simply welcoming the decision of UNISON’s NJC Committee to press ahead with a strike ballot without questioning the enormously lengthy timetable for action.
The employers haven’t shifted their position (as of today’s date) since we lodged our claim and – even if they do offer a “pay envelope” worth 2.5% tomorrow – the most that there are now likely to do is to make an offer which they were hinting at in the spring.
Evidence from elsewhere in the Union is that there are those who are eager to return from the negotiating table bearing a few crumbs only to claim that these are in fact the latest thing in very small cakes for slimmers and we should be grateful for them… (or at least that we ought to try them before deciding we don’t like them). Some ungrateful souls are not taking this advice!
How are we to avoid a similar outcome for local government workers, whose pay failed to keep pace with price inflation from 2004 to April this year and is now set to fall further in real terms?
Certainly we need to keep up the campaigning. So congratulations go to Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary, John Burgess, for getting a petition up on the number 10 website on the question of public sector pay – the Barnet Branch blog is one of the best sources of campaigning material on the pay claim in local government. As John says this may not be as strongly worded as he would wish but we can encourage members to sign it. For those on Facebook there is also a group to join there.
It’s tough campaigning over the summer – but if we don’t get a move on then those who never wanted a fight on pay in the first place will soon be telling us that it is much too close to Christmas to expect members to strike…
We need clear information about what is said at tomorrow’s meeting of the NJC Executive to be circulated as widely and as swiftly as possible so that activists can consider this and lobby members of the NJC Committee ahead of the meeting on 4 September. I hope we can expect to see such information on the UNISON website by Monday morning.
Update on Thursday evening - this post has prompted a response which makes a fair bit of sense.
Where's the Agenda?
According to the TUC website the Final Agenda for Congress will be published by 22 August.
It’s late.
Mind you, the TUC are now 81 years late to really protect the interests of the Miners Federation of Great Britain so it’s not the first time…
It’s late.
Mind you, the TUC are now 81 years late to really protect the interests of the Miners Federation of Great Britain so it’s not the first time…
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Cuts cost lives
Cuts cost lives – whether in the Fire Service or the Health Service. (And most “reorganisations” of public services which purport to be about improving services are really about making cuts – though not always in the pay of those at the very top…!)
The answer to improving public services is to put in the resources and manage the services well.
We don’t need continually “efficiencies” (a code word for cuts and job losses) nor do we need the involvement of private companies or so-called Third Sector organisations which try to drive down pay and conditions (and the quality of services!)
I’d like to say that it is time our trade union movement stood up against the Government that is driving through these attacks on our public services. But that would be wrong. It is long past that time.
At the TUC in three weeks time the trade union leaders could tell us which side we should be on in the confrontation between the Government and our members – deliberately initiated by the Government.
Or perhaps that won't happen...
The answer to improving public services is to put in the resources and manage the services well.
We don’t need continually “efficiencies” (a code word for cuts and job losses) nor do we need the involvement of private companies or so-called Third Sector organisations which try to drive down pay and conditions (and the quality of services!)
I’d like to say that it is time our trade union movement stood up against the Government that is driving through these attacks on our public services. But that would be wrong. It is long past that time.
At the TUC in three weeks time the trade union leaders could tell us which side we should be on in the confrontation between the Government and our members – deliberately initiated by the Government.
Or perhaps that won't happen...
Monday, August 20, 2007
Local Government Pay - what next?
Full marks to UNISON’s NJC Committee who today decided to continue preparations for a strike ballot of our local government members in opposition to the scandalous 2% pay offer (equivalent to a pay cut in “real terms” of more than 2% as the Retail Price Index stands above 4%). Whether we will see a serious fight for a decent pay rise or an attempt to railroad a dodgy compromise remains, of course, an open question.
[Note for those who are not anoraks - The NJC is the National Joint Council (the negotiating body for pay and conditions in English and Welsh local government) and the UNISON NJC Committee consists of UNISON’s members of that body (the majority of the trade union side).]
The NJC Committee decided to press ahead with preparations for the strike ballot in spite of indications that the employers’ side may be preparing to make an improved offer at Friday’s meeting of the NJC Executive – the Committee will meet again on 4 September to consider what to do in response to any improved offer.
The NJC was right on two counts. First, if there is any chance of a significantly improved offer then before that offer has been made is not the time to let up on pressure on the employers! Secondly, activists need to be confident that the leadership are serious about preparing to fight against this attack upon our members’ standard of living if we are to stand a chance of mobilising our members to take action.
The questions to which we need to turn our minds are what should be done if there is an improved offer – and what strike action should we be preparing for if a satisfactory improvement is not offered. It seems logical that there must be some improvement to be offered (or why meet? The trade union side cancelled the last meeting – rightly – when they were told nothing more was to be offered). But how much? And what then?
Obviously if a trivial improvement is offered (say £38 each for most members) then I hope the Committee will simply press ahead. If a more significant increase is made in the offer then the Committee will need to decide whether to repeat the consultation exercise that produced an 81% rejection of the 2% offer. I can’t see that this would be worth doing for any offer worth less than 3% on the pay bill, but that may not be the view of everyone.
There are those who say that our members will strike against an offer of 2% but would be less enthusiastic to strike against an offer of 2.5% (the amount many local authorities budgeted for). Since the employers hinted at making an offer worth 2.5% on the pay bill there is a risk that some on the NJC Committee and the Service Group Executive would wish to recommend acceptance of such an offer – in blatant contravention of Conference policy. Those who believe that our members will accept 2.5% were noticeable by their absence – and their silence – at Conference in June.
There is also always the risk that an elected lay Committee will refuse to make a recommendation to members in a further consultative ballot – an abdication of responsibility which could only possibly be made worse by a subsequent attempt to stifle debate. (This is of course what has happened in the Health Service Group, where I hope that activists will continue to encourage members to reflect upon their own interests when deciding whether or not to accept a very poor offer).
If you are a local government worker reading this you are not just a spectator. Join UNISON and you can have a say;
Local government members who want a pay rise closer to our claim (for 5% or £1,000) than to the employers’ lousy 2% offer need to be lobbying their elected members on the SGE and NJC Committees to express their views. The elected members of the SGE are listed online here.
If we don’t prevent a below inflation pay deal in the first year of the Brown premiership then things can only get worse from here on in – the employers are already planning ahead (as we were warned in June by the SGE) and we need to show strength and determination to defend national pay bargaining and our conditions of service.
[Note for those who are not anoraks - The NJC is the National Joint Council (the negotiating body for pay and conditions in English and Welsh local government) and the UNISON NJC Committee consists of UNISON’s members of that body (the majority of the trade union side).]
The NJC Committee decided to press ahead with preparations for the strike ballot in spite of indications that the employers’ side may be preparing to make an improved offer at Friday’s meeting of the NJC Executive – the Committee will meet again on 4 September to consider what to do in response to any improved offer.
The NJC was right on two counts. First, if there is any chance of a significantly improved offer then before that offer has been made is not the time to let up on pressure on the employers! Secondly, activists need to be confident that the leadership are serious about preparing to fight against this attack upon our members’ standard of living if we are to stand a chance of mobilising our members to take action.
The questions to which we need to turn our minds are what should be done if there is an improved offer – and what strike action should we be preparing for if a satisfactory improvement is not offered. It seems logical that there must be some improvement to be offered (or why meet? The trade union side cancelled the last meeting – rightly – when they were told nothing more was to be offered). But how much? And what then?
Obviously if a trivial improvement is offered (say £38 each for most members) then I hope the Committee will simply press ahead. If a more significant increase is made in the offer then the Committee will need to decide whether to repeat the consultation exercise that produced an 81% rejection of the 2% offer. I can’t see that this would be worth doing for any offer worth less than 3% on the pay bill, but that may not be the view of everyone.
There are those who say that our members will strike against an offer of 2% but would be less enthusiastic to strike against an offer of 2.5% (the amount many local authorities budgeted for). Since the employers hinted at making an offer worth 2.5% on the pay bill there is a risk that some on the NJC Committee and the Service Group Executive would wish to recommend acceptance of such an offer – in blatant contravention of Conference policy. Those who believe that our members will accept 2.5% were noticeable by their absence – and their silence – at Conference in June.
There is also always the risk that an elected lay Committee will refuse to make a recommendation to members in a further consultative ballot – an abdication of responsibility which could only possibly be made worse by a subsequent attempt to stifle debate. (This is of course what has happened in the Health Service Group, where I hope that activists will continue to encourage members to reflect upon their own interests when deciding whether or not to accept a very poor offer).
If you are a local government worker reading this you are not just a spectator. Join UNISON and you can have a say;
Local government members who want a pay rise closer to our claim (for 5% or £1,000) than to the employers’ lousy 2% offer need to be lobbying their elected members on the SGE and NJC Committees to express their views. The elected members of the SGE are listed online here.
If we don’t prevent a below inflation pay deal in the first year of the Brown premiership then things can only get worse from here on in – the employers are already planning ahead (as we were warned in June by the SGE) and we need to show strength and determination to defend national pay bargaining and our conditions of service.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Strike action on the way
Let’s hope the UNISON National Joint Council Committee on Monday accepts the recommendation to commence a strike ballot!
As the Head of Local Government puts it on the website;
"If we are to move the employers and the government to make a better offer, we need to mount a massive campaign to win a 'yes' vote in an industrial action ballot," "And then we must make sure that effective sustained action takes place in every council and workplace."
We also need unity with other public service workers who are in dispute over pay, or who will be, or who might be!
Incidentally, it is excellent news that health service members of UNISON in Manchester have voted to strike in support of victimised activist Karen Reissman and also that local government members in Edinburgh are taking strike action against cuts and job losses.
A vigorous campaigning approach is what we need to help our Union to grow – as much as we all enjoy adverts with animals on…
As the Head of Local Government puts it on the website;
"If we are to move the employers and the government to make a better offer, we need to mount a massive campaign to win a 'yes' vote in an industrial action ballot," "And then we must make sure that effective sustained action takes place in every council and workplace."
We also need unity with other public service workers who are in dispute over pay, or who will be, or who might be!
Incidentally, it is excellent news that health service members of UNISON in Manchester have voted to strike in support of victimised activist Karen Reissman and also that local government members in Edinburgh are taking strike action against cuts and job losses.
A vigorous campaigning approach is what we need to help our Union to grow – as much as we all enjoy adverts with animals on…
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Say no to pay cuts
It seems as if some of our national officials with a tenuous grasp upon concepts like debate and democracy (not to mention UNISON’s Rules!) really do want to try to stop UNISON activists campaigning for our members to reject a poor pay offer in the health service.
As a local government member I can only view this as tantamount to sabotage of our hopes for a unified fight for decent pay increases in the public sector – as an NEC member I view this as an alarming attack upon UNISON democracy (in aid of which the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines are invariably quoted!)
I am glad that activists are continuing to campaign in spite of red-baiting rubbish and poorly argued nonsense from those who clearly wish they could be recommending a pay rise below the level of the Retail Price Index (RPI) now at 4.8% and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) now at 3.1%, which would represent a pay cut in real terms and would have a significant impact on the standard of living for staff who include some of the lowest paid in the NHS. Coupled with the significant increases in energy costs, council tax and travel costs, health workers would see no benefit from such a low pay increase.
If you recognise those words it is because they are drawn from the agreed policy of our Health Service Group Conference. Although inflation has fallen the pay offers to our members in both health and local government still fall short of keeping our standard of living from declining. Let’s hope our members reject these pay cuts!
As a local government member I can only view this as tantamount to sabotage of our hopes for a unified fight for decent pay increases in the public sector – as an NEC member I view this as an alarming attack upon UNISON democracy (in aid of which the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines are invariably quoted!)
I am glad that activists are continuing to campaign in spite of red-baiting rubbish and poorly argued nonsense from those who clearly wish they could be recommending a pay rise below the level of the Retail Price Index (RPI) now at 4.8% and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) now at 3.1%, which would represent a pay cut in real terms and would have a significant impact on the standard of living for staff who include some of the lowest paid in the NHS. Coupled with the significant increases in energy costs, council tax and travel costs, health workers would see no benefit from such a low pay increase.
If you recognise those words it is because they are drawn from the agreed policy of our Health Service Group Conference. Although inflation has fallen the pay offers to our members in both health and local government still fall short of keeping our standard of living from declining. Let’s hope our members reject these pay cuts!
Defending activists
It is good to see strong support for victimised Manchester health worker, Karen Reissman on the UNISON website today. We need to mobilise the same strong support for Michael Gavan, Chair of UNISON’s Newham local government branch, about whose suspension I have blogged before.
I hope to be able to support our members in Newham tomorrow at a protest at East Ham Town Hall. As the Government’s reactionary plans to devastate our public services and hold down the pay of public sector workers develop we will see more and more instances of employers, pursuing these policies, seeking to eliminate the opposition provided by effective trade union activists.
We need to defend our activists and remember which side we are on.
I hope to be able to support our members in Newham tomorrow at a protest at East Ham Town Hall. As the Government’s reactionary plans to devastate our public services and hold down the pay of public sector workers develop we will see more and more instances of employers, pursuing these policies, seeking to eliminate the opposition provided by effective trade union activists.
We need to defend our activists and remember which side we are on.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Health service pay - should we have a discussion or not?
The UNISON Head of Health has just sent a circular to our health branches suggesting that they – and individual members of regional and national Committees – ought not to express opinions about the current consultative ballot on the marginally improved pay offer to NHS workers!
The circular reads as follows;
“The UNISON Health Group Executive ballot of individual members on the Pay Offer is due to begin on the 20 August. The position taken by the Health Group Executive is to consult members without a recommendation as “the best offer that can be secured through negotiation”. This position has been set to branches in the branch communication HC-92-07.
The Health Group Executive agreed specifically not to recommend either acceptance or rejection of the offer. It is therefore extremely important that branches and elected members of regional or national committees should not undermine that agreed policy. To do so would be a breach of the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines.
This circular emphasises that union bodies at national, regional and branch level must observe and respect the union’s policy position which was democratically agreed by the Health Group Executive on 25 July 07. In addition it is important that Branches are aware of their obligation to ensure that they promote and implement agreed policy.”
I have just responded to this strange circular as follows;
“I have seen the circular to health branches purporting to instruct branches and office holders that it would be a breach of the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines for branches (or individual members of Regional or National Committees) to make recommendations to members in the current consultative ballot of health service members over the pay offer.
I did at first think that this was a spoof circular issued by some mischievous comrade wishing to poke fun at the alleged “control freak” tendencies of some at Mabledon Place. I now realise however that this may be an authentic circular to branches.
I realise that August is traditionally the “silly season” but regret that we may have excelled ourselves here.
Under Rule (B.2.5) members (including members of Committees) have a clear right to campaign to initiate and develop policy. Branches have in the past relied upon this right to make recommendations at variance with national recommendations and this has not been challenged.
At the last NEC the questions was raised as to whether or not branches ought to make recommendations at variance with a clear national recommendation in the LGPS ballot. The outcome of this issue having been raised was that the General Secretary suggested that the question be referred to the Development and Organisation Committee. That question has therefore yet to be resolved.
In the case of the ballot of members on pay in health the SGE decided not to make a recommendation. In these circumstances to suggest that branches and individuals may not make recommendations is absurd and has no basis in UNISON Rules. Branches may make policy in accordance with their rules and Rule G.3.3.2. That policy can include policy to change UNISON policy (or how would Conference motions proposing a change in policy ever come about?)
There may be branches (or individual national Committee members) who feel that the priority is to secure the re-election of Gordon Brown, or who feel that the Government will not concede even to strike action (because they have told us as much). These branches and individuals have every right, under UNISON rules to campaign for acceptance of a real-terms pay cut for the majority of our NHS membership as the best practicable outcome (in their view).
Equally there are branches and individuals who will take the view that our members do not join our Union in order to be encouraged to accept a decline in their standard of living. These branches and individuals have every right under our Rules to campaign for rejection of the pay offer.
I would be grateful to know when the NEC interpreted our Rules to support the bizarre and unreasonable approach of the circular to health branches. I don’t know why we as a Union should be seeking to stifle debate in a way which gives the impression that we are more interested in supporting the Government than our own members.
I look forward to hearing from you.”
I hope that members and branches will not be discouraged from expressing and debating opinions! If the SGE decided not to make a recommendation then that cannot have been a unanimous decision to refuse to provide leadership – it must have reflected uncertainty (which is no bad thing in uncertain circumstances). If the leadership is uncertain then stifling debate amongst the rank and file is hardly sensible – how will we decide upon the correct course of action if we do so?
Of course if one had the objective of securing the acquiescence of the membership if a poor pay offer then preventing the airing of contrary opinions would be a sound tactic. Happily no one in our Union has that objective and therefore no doubt this unfortunate circular will shortly be withdrawn.
In the mean time, as an elected member of our NEC, I want to be clear that, with all due respect to the SGE, if I were a health worker I would vote to reject the offer (although I think I have voted to reject every pay offer I have ever been made so I suppose that is not too shocking…)
Really though, why should we be accepting any pay rises below the rate of inflation? Are we too rich? Too well paid????
The circular reads as follows;
“The UNISON Health Group Executive ballot of individual members on the Pay Offer is due to begin on the 20 August. The position taken by the Health Group Executive is to consult members without a recommendation as “the best offer that can be secured through negotiation”. This position has been set to branches in the branch communication HC-92-07.
The Health Group Executive agreed specifically not to recommend either acceptance or rejection of the offer. It is therefore extremely important that branches and elected members of regional or national committees should not undermine that agreed policy. To do so would be a breach of the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines.
This circular emphasises that union bodies at national, regional and branch level must observe and respect the union’s policy position which was democratically agreed by the Health Group Executive on 25 July 07. In addition it is important that Branches are aware of their obligation to ensure that they promote and implement agreed policy.”
I have just responded to this strange circular as follows;
“I have seen the circular to health branches purporting to instruct branches and office holders that it would be a breach of the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines for branches (or individual members of Regional or National Committees) to make recommendations to members in the current consultative ballot of health service members over the pay offer.
I did at first think that this was a spoof circular issued by some mischievous comrade wishing to poke fun at the alleged “control freak” tendencies of some at Mabledon Place. I now realise however that this may be an authentic circular to branches.
I realise that August is traditionally the “silly season” but regret that we may have excelled ourselves here.
Under Rule (B.2.5) members (including members of Committees) have a clear right to campaign to initiate and develop policy. Branches have in the past relied upon this right to make recommendations at variance with national recommendations and this has not been challenged.
At the last NEC the questions was raised as to whether or not branches ought to make recommendations at variance with a clear national recommendation in the LGPS ballot. The outcome of this issue having been raised was that the General Secretary suggested that the question be referred to the Development and Organisation Committee. That question has therefore yet to be resolved.
In the case of the ballot of members on pay in health the SGE decided not to make a recommendation. In these circumstances to suggest that branches and individuals may not make recommendations is absurd and has no basis in UNISON Rules. Branches may make policy in accordance with their rules and Rule G.3.3.2. That policy can include policy to change UNISON policy (or how would Conference motions proposing a change in policy ever come about?)
There may be branches (or individual national Committee members) who feel that the priority is to secure the re-election of Gordon Brown, or who feel that the Government will not concede even to strike action (because they have told us as much). These branches and individuals have every right, under UNISON rules to campaign for acceptance of a real-terms pay cut for the majority of our NHS membership as the best practicable outcome (in their view).
Equally there are branches and individuals who will take the view that our members do not join our Union in order to be encouraged to accept a decline in their standard of living. These branches and individuals have every right under our Rules to campaign for rejection of the pay offer.
I would be grateful to know when the NEC interpreted our Rules to support the bizarre and unreasonable approach of the circular to health branches. I don’t know why we as a Union should be seeking to stifle debate in a way which gives the impression that we are more interested in supporting the Government than our own members.
I look forward to hearing from you.”
I hope that members and branches will not be discouraged from expressing and debating opinions! If the SGE decided not to make a recommendation then that cannot have been a unanimous decision to refuse to provide leadership – it must have reflected uncertainty (which is no bad thing in uncertain circumstances). If the leadership is uncertain then stifling debate amongst the rank and file is hardly sensible – how will we decide upon the correct course of action if we do so?
Of course if one had the objective of securing the acquiescence of the membership if a poor pay offer then preventing the airing of contrary opinions would be a sound tactic. Happily no one in our Union has that objective and therefore no doubt this unfortunate circular will shortly be withdrawn.
In the mean time, as an elected member of our NEC, I want to be clear that, with all due respect to the SGE, if I were a health worker I would vote to reject the offer (although I think I have voted to reject every pay offer I have ever been made so I suppose that is not too shocking…)
Really though, why should we be accepting any pay rises below the rate of inflation? Are we too rich? Too well paid????
Victimisation of a UNISON official
I am sad to learn that Newham Council have suspended UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.
Michael is a widely respected UNISON activist and the Newham Branch deserve our full support in responding to this attack.
I have today sent the following message to Robin Wales and Chris Wood at Newham Council;
“I am writing to express my disappointment at the decision of the London Borough of Newham to suspend the highly respected Chair of the local UNISON Branch, Michael Gavan.
I hope that you will swiftly reverse this foolish suspension which reflects very badly upon the London Borough of Newham.
This is not the conduct of a progressive twenty-first century local authority and I very much hope that you will seek to restore a constructive relationship with the Newham branch of UNISON.”
I strongly urge all trade unionists to support our brothers and sisters in Newham – copying in the Newham Branch to any correspondence.
Michael is a widely respected UNISON activist and the Newham Branch deserve our full support in responding to this attack.
I have today sent the following message to Robin Wales and Chris Wood at Newham Council;
“I am writing to express my disappointment at the decision of the London Borough of Newham to suspend the highly respected Chair of the local UNISON Branch, Michael Gavan.
I hope that you will swiftly reverse this foolish suspension which reflects very badly upon the London Borough of Newham.
This is not the conduct of a progressive twenty-first century local authority and I very much hope that you will seek to restore a constructive relationship with the Newham branch of UNISON.”
I strongly urge all trade unionists to support our brothers and sisters in Newham – copying in the Newham Branch to any correspondence.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Back to work
Back to work today – so no more of this or this. Back instead to this and this.
I’m sorry to see the news that thousands more cases are being taken against trade unions by no win no fee solicitors on behalf of members claiming that the unions have not fought hard enough to secure equal pay.
If members don’t think our unions are fighting hard enough (on any issue) the answer is to stand for election and try to change things, not to litigate.
Of course our union leaderships need to be receptive to criticism and not respond in a hostile and defensive way to critics if democracy is going to function to advance and improve our unions…
I’m sorry to see the news that thousands more cases are being taken against trade unions by no win no fee solicitors on behalf of members claiming that the unions have not fought hard enough to secure equal pay.
If members don’t think our unions are fighting hard enough (on any issue) the answer is to stand for election and try to change things, not to litigate.
Of course our union leaderships need to be receptive to criticism and not respond in a hostile and defensive way to critics if democracy is going to function to advance and improve our unions…
Friday, August 10, 2007
Pay - TUC to the rescue???
No regular blogging just now as I have better things to do.
What are we to make of the suspension of strike action in the postal service?
All strikes end in negotiation and (usually) compromise – so it is to be hoped that the CWU can get a good deal. It was alwasy going to be difficult to coordinate all the various public sector pay struggles – even within one Union between health and local government… We still need to secure the maximum coordination if we are to break the 2% pay norm.
I notice though that the talks between the CWU and the Royal Mail are being hosted by the TUC. Now I thought we had a neutral and independent body to host these sort of talks… (and ok, I know ACAS is a government body and that the state in a capitalist society is not really neutral between workers and employers…)
What concerns me is that instead of being a coordinating body to organise and grow a fighting trade union movement, the TUC seems content to take on the role of broker of deals between public service unions and their employers (behind whom stands the Labour Government). Is this what we want from a trade union centre?
I worry that when Congress comes to Brighton in four weeks time, while we will have a good firm composite motion on public sector pay based upon submissions from PCS and the NUT which you can find in the Preliminary Agenda, we will also have a statement from the General Council. I am not sure that the General Council of the TUC will take a firm line on public sector pay.
Or am I just an old cynic who should get out more…?
What are we to make of the suspension of strike action in the postal service?
All strikes end in negotiation and (usually) compromise – so it is to be hoped that the CWU can get a good deal. It was alwasy going to be difficult to coordinate all the various public sector pay struggles – even within one Union between health and local government… We still need to secure the maximum coordination if we are to break the 2% pay norm.
I notice though that the talks between the CWU and the Royal Mail are being hosted by the TUC. Now I thought we had a neutral and independent body to host these sort of talks… (and ok, I know ACAS is a government body and that the state in a capitalist society is not really neutral between workers and employers…)
What concerns me is that instead of being a coordinating body to organise and grow a fighting trade union movement, the TUC seems content to take on the role of broker of deals between public service unions and their employers (behind whom stands the Labour Government). Is this what we want from a trade union centre?
I worry that when Congress comes to Brighton in four weeks time, while we will have a good firm composite motion on public sector pay based upon submissions from PCS and the NUT which you can find in the Preliminary Agenda, we will also have a statement from the General Council. I am not sure that the General Council of the TUC will take a firm line on public sector pay.
Or am I just an old cynic who should get out more…?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Preparations for the TUC continue whilst the rest of us sun ourselves
It is reassuring to know that whilst some of us are enjoying ourselves, the routines of the labour and trade union movement are continuing to play themselves out.
Today I got the annual letter inviting me to express an interest in speaking at September’s Trades Union Congress. It may be that the UNISON Presidential Team will once more wish to spare me the stress and heartache of having to address Congress on behalf of our Union, but I shall volunteer! If any readers have any suggestions as to what I should volunteer to speak on then let me know!
This reminds me that, as I missed last week’s TUC Delegation meeting I have not reported on it here – but a fellow NEC member, James Anthony, has a report on his blog. (Well worth a look, just to see that there is a blogger on the UNISON NEC who happily find himself in agreement with the majority – a circumstance likely to give rise to great optimism).
Today I got the annual letter inviting me to express an interest in speaking at September’s Trades Union Congress. It may be that the UNISON Presidential Team will once more wish to spare me the stress and heartache of having to address Congress on behalf of our Union, but I shall volunteer! If any readers have any suggestions as to what I should volunteer to speak on then let me know!
This reminds me that, as I missed last week’s TUC Delegation meeting I have not reported on it here – but a fellow NEC member, James Anthony, has a report on his blog. (Well worth a look, just to see that there is a blogger on the UNISON NEC who happily find himself in agreement with the majority – a circumstance likely to give rise to great optimism).
Support Union activists at home and abroad!
One of the most important tasks for trade unionists is to defend our brothers and sisters when they are victimised. As I am not in London I won’t be at the protest outside the Iranian embassy tomorrow – UNISON is supporting this protest against the jailing of union leaders.
We don’t face the same hazards in this country!
However it is still important that our Union responds vigorously when our activists are attacked – as is the case with the suspension of Manchester health activist Karen Reissman. Karen has been suspended for speaking out and because she is an effective UNISON lay activist. The result of a strike ballot is expected soon.
Our activists are the heart and soul of our Union – and when employers attack them we have to be vigorous in our response.
We don’t face the same hazards in this country!
However it is still important that our Union responds vigorously when our activists are attacked – as is the case with the suspension of Manchester health activist Karen Reissman. Karen has been suspended for speaking out and because she is an effective UNISON lay activist. The result of a strike ballot is expected soon.
Our activists are the heart and soul of our Union – and when employers attack them we have to be vigorous in our response.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Sun, sea and strike ballots
Today’s update to the UNISON website is encouraging news about the local government strike ballot.
Following overwhelming rejection of a 2% pay offer in a consultative ballot UNISON's pay and single status group is now recommending the union proceeds to an industrial action ballot. In tandem with UNISON, the GMB and TGWU-Unite are also preparing to ballot their members on industrial action.
Something to look forward to when I get back to work, but for now, no more blogging…
Following overwhelming rejection of a 2% pay offer in a consultative ballot UNISON's pay and single status group is now recommending the union proceeds to an industrial action ballot. In tandem with UNISON, the GMB and TGWU-Unite are also preparing to ballot their members on industrial action.
Something to look forward to when I get back to work, but for now, no more blogging…
Friday, August 03, 2007
No to 2% in local government - and in health???
So there is a new pay offer in the NHS, and it is barely more than fourpence ha’penny extra bus fare for the negotiators…
I agree with the individual member of the Health Service Group Executive (SGE) who thinks this is not worth accepting. I understand that the SGE won’t be making a recommendation in the membership ballot, which (you might think) is not the very best way to build the confidence of our members to take the industrial action necessary to break the 2% pay norm.
If the negotiators say “it therefore follows that if members wish to reject the offer, they must also be prepared to support industrial action in the event of a subsequent industrial action ballot” then that is not exactly calculated to encourage members to express such support.
Another way of putting things would be to say that “inflation is running at 4.3% and earnings across the economy are rising by 3.6% but the employers have offered you a 2% pay rise. This is in line with the government's 2% public sector pay policy. It's a pay cut, not a pay rise! And you deserve better.”
In local government the Union made a clear recommendation that members reject 2% and prepare for strike action – and the members rejected 2% on the basis of being prepared to take strike action.
In preparation for the consultation on an offer worth 2% in local government members were asked to bear in mind the following;
the cost of living is currently increasing by 4.5%
increases in the cost of housing, fuel and energy, council tax and childcare are even higher
pay across the economy is rising by 3.6%
UNISON is co-ordinating our pay campaign with our health and other service groups and with other public sector unions.
Before asking our members in health their opinion on an offer worth 2% UNISON says simply that “the parties to the Staff Council Executive
believe that this formal offer represents the best that can be achieved through negotiation.”
I hope that rank and file members in health will have more confidence in their strength than is shown by this weak-kneed approach endorsed by the SGE. I am sure a rank and file campaign to vote to reject 2% will gather strength in the next few days and will blog about this as soon as I hear more.
In the mean time members in local government need to prepare for a strike ballot. On 6 August the Pay & Single Status Project Group will meet to discuss in detail the results of the pay consultation and consider the next steps in our campaign, a further update will be issued officially next week.
Branches must continue to build awareness and support with all members for the pay campaign and recruit non members and to help us fight this pay cut.
The rejection of 2% by our members has provided a basis to go back to the employers and Government and ask for more. I doubt we will see more for our local government members without strike action, however at least we have the ability to continue arguing having rejected 2%. Our members in health have to vote to reject 2% in order to get into that position by 13 September – until then the Government can hope that we will swallow the first year of this new policy of pay cuts.
Unfortunately the timetable for the ballot of members in health runs right through the dates for this year’s TUC Congress, at which it appears that any sound composite on public service pay based upon submissions from PCS and the NUT will now be accompanied by a General Council statement. UNISON's position will obviously be complicated by not knowing the result of the consultation in health. What an unfortunate coincidence indeed.
Will the General Council clearly reject the 2% pay norm and back all those taking action against it, or will it equivocate in anticipation of a General election? Experience within UNISON suggests that both approaches have support within the trade union movement…
I agree with the individual member of the Health Service Group Executive (SGE) who thinks this is not worth accepting. I understand that the SGE won’t be making a recommendation in the membership ballot, which (you might think) is not the very best way to build the confidence of our members to take the industrial action necessary to break the 2% pay norm.
If the negotiators say “it therefore follows that if members wish to reject the offer, they must also be prepared to support industrial action in the event of a subsequent industrial action ballot” then that is not exactly calculated to encourage members to express such support.
Another way of putting things would be to say that “inflation is running at 4.3% and earnings across the economy are rising by 3.6% but the employers have offered you a 2% pay rise. This is in line with the government's 2% public sector pay policy. It's a pay cut, not a pay rise! And you deserve better.”
In local government the Union made a clear recommendation that members reject 2% and prepare for strike action – and the members rejected 2% on the basis of being prepared to take strike action.
In preparation for the consultation on an offer worth 2% in local government members were asked to bear in mind the following;
the cost of living is currently increasing by 4.5%
increases in the cost of housing, fuel and energy, council tax and childcare are even higher
pay across the economy is rising by 3.6%
UNISON is co-ordinating our pay campaign with our health and other service groups and with other public sector unions.
Before asking our members in health their opinion on an offer worth 2% UNISON says simply that “the parties to the Staff Council Executive
believe that this formal offer represents the best that can be achieved through negotiation.”
I hope that rank and file members in health will have more confidence in their strength than is shown by this weak-kneed approach endorsed by the SGE. I am sure a rank and file campaign to vote to reject 2% will gather strength in the next few days and will blog about this as soon as I hear more.
In the mean time members in local government need to prepare for a strike ballot. On 6 August the Pay & Single Status Project Group will meet to discuss in detail the results of the pay consultation and consider the next steps in our campaign, a further update will be issued officially next week.
Branches must continue to build awareness and support with all members for the pay campaign and recruit non members and to help us fight this pay cut.
The rejection of 2% by our members has provided a basis to go back to the employers and Government and ask for more. I doubt we will see more for our local government members without strike action, however at least we have the ability to continue arguing having rejected 2%. Our members in health have to vote to reject 2% in order to get into that position by 13 September – until then the Government can hope that we will swallow the first year of this new policy of pay cuts.
Unfortunately the timetable for the ballot of members in health runs right through the dates for this year’s TUC Congress, at which it appears that any sound composite on public service pay based upon submissions from PCS and the NUT will now be accompanied by a General Council statement. UNISON's position will obviously be complicated by not knowing the result of the consultation in health. What an unfortunate coincidence indeed.
Will the General Council clearly reject the 2% pay norm and back all those taking action against it, or will it equivocate in anticipation of a General election? Experience within UNISON suggests that both approaches have support within the trade union movement…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)