Poor pay offer demands strike ballot

Yes – an initial 2.2% pay offer is indeed a “slap in the face” to local government workers. The Trade Union Side was unanimous in condemning the offer, which attaches strings to a basic pay offer below even the current CPI level of 2.5%.

We should be responding with honesty and clarity.

We need to be honest with our members about the rate of inflation – we don’t need to care about the CPI index which does not reflect the cost of living. We have to acknowledge that a pay rise below the Retail Price Index (RPI) will be a real terms pay cut. If 2.2% is a slap in the face, 2.5% will be a poke in the eye.

We also have to be clear that we are not going to get anywhere near a pay rise which keeps pace with real price inflation without national strike action. That is why it is not helpful or encouraging to hear that there will be further negotiations on 2 April. That’s too late.

Our pay rise is due on 1 April. Every day that passes beyond that date in 2008 without moves towards a strike ballot will be a day on which members will start to conclude that we are not serious.

Winning a strike ballot will not be easy and winning a better pay deal will not be easy. We may not win. However if we genuinely believe in the justice of the claim which we have submitted we owe it to our members to offer a strategy which could win us an offer closer to our claim.

I believe that the evidence is that national strike action could do this and that we ought to offer our members the opportunity to support action which can win – and to do so now.

UNISON Regional Committee and the standing orders for the Regional Council

I knew the title of this post would grab your attention...

I shall be sorry to miss tomorrow’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee (honestly! I enjoy Regional Committees) and shall invite other comrades to let us know here what excitement takes place.

One topic which is covered in the report from the Regional Convenor and Secretary to tomorrow’s meeting is the vexed question of the arrangements for the Standing Orders Committee function for the Regional Council (i.e. who decides what gets admitted to the agenda and what does not).

For those with long memories you may recall reading about this here before.

Long ago when UNISON was young there was a Standing Orders Committee for the Regional Council, a body so engaged by its function that it recommended that it cease to exist and that its functions pass to the Regional Committee.

Eventually, perhaps because the Regional Committee was often admirably liberal in what it would permit to be debated at the Regional Council, officers felt that it was inappropriate that the Regional Committee should fulfil this function, citing a “conflict of interest.”

And, although there are other Regions where such an approach appears not to be a problem, most of those interested in this debate could see the point. The Regional Secretary identified two options for the carrying out of the Standing Orders function – both of them consisting of small sub groups of the Regional Committee (either the Regional Finance Team or the Regional Council Officers Group).

More than a year ago at the Regional Committee a third option was suggested – an elected Standing Orders Committee independent of the Regional Committee. There followed a process of “consultation” with branches which covered only the two options identified by the Regional Secretary and not the third proposed by an experienced and respected Regional Committee member.

A small minority of branches responded and a fair few backed the option which had not even been included in the consultation, but slightly fewer backed one of the other options (giving the job to the Regional Council Officers team) and this was then imposed without any sanction of either the Regional Council or Regional Committee.

To date the Regional Council has not agreed to this change. At the Annual General Meeting last month both options were put to the vote and neither commanded the two thirds majority required to change the rules. Votes were counted but the results were not announced (though it was pretty clear that the option of an elected Standing Orders Committee, for which the case was put more convincingly, commanded the greater support).

In the light of this decision I was hoping to see a compromise suggestion from the Regional leadership, taking seriously their responsibility for unifying the Union in Greater London. Instead I was disappointed to read a proposal that an option which had specifically not been approved by the Regional Council should continue and that the Regional Council Officers should continue to provide the Standing Orders function for the Regional Council.

Whilst technically the Regional Committee may decide to delegate this responsibility in this way, to do so in the face of the Regional Council decision seems bizarre.

I have suggested a possible compromise to the Regional Convenor and Secretary. I hope that the Regional Committee will reflect on this and will try to reach out and unite our Union. We face something of a crisis of activism and engagement in the Region (as evidenced by the disappearance of branch bids to the Regional Pool over the recent period) and this will only change if we all try to reach out and work constructively together.

I wish good luck to all those who go to tomorrow’s Regional Committee hoping to build and strengthen UNISON.

Update on Wednesday 19 May - news from Mabels is that the Regional Committee did agree, by a majority, to delegate its standing orders functions in respect of the Regional Council to the Regional Council Officers group, although the Regional Council itself had not agreed this.

More statistics on pay...

While we're waiting for the Pay Review Body in the NHS and the meeting of the Executive of the National Joint Council in local government, here's a little picture stolen shamelessly from the excellent "Campaign Teacher" to show why the likely offer of 2.5% or so is rubbish.

It's not about "breaking the 2% pay norm" now - it's about beating the rate of price inflation. And that's the Retail Price Index (RPI = real price inflation) not the Consumer Price Index (CPI = con-trick price inflation).

Perhaps someone who's a bit more artistic than me can do better with the graphic?

Haringey local government branch AGM

It’s good to learn of progress in negotiations in the dispute over Birmingham’s pay and grading review. I hope that the detail of offers being made (and those being accepted) can be shared more widely in the Union.

Whatever view members in Birmingham take of the current state of negotiations it is clear that the dispute shows that strike action can shift the employers – in other words, strike action works.

This is a point I made (perhaps a little predictably) yesterday to the well attended Annual General Meeting of the Haringey local government branch, at which I spoke about the national local government pay claim, pointing out how our pay has fallen behind rising prices, and how the evidence of the past is that national local government pay strikes can improve the pay of local government workers.

Sonya Howard, from Kensington and Chelsea branch, who also addressed the meeting, gave a wide ranging and well received overview of the challenges facing UNISON in local government.

The branch also agreed a very positive policy to promote and development environmental activism as an integral part of our Union (Green UNISON as it is now being called). Will environmental activism given an impetus to our organisation – and recruit new activists (as our work on the learning agenda has to some extent) – or will it just be more demands upon the time of a few?

Since climate change has destructive potential equivalent in the long term to the threat we faced (rather more immediately) from nuclear war in the 1980s we probably need to pay attention to the issue regardless of its implications for our organisation of course!

Too busy for lay democracy?

Whenever two or more UNISON activists are gathered together you know we’ll end up complaining about how busy we are at some point, it’s right up there with other favourite discussion topics like “improbable victories at disciplinary hearings” and sharing good and bad information about senior HR managers as they progress between employers.

Well today we learned that our paid officials (and particularly our senior paid officials) are much busier than we are (so no doubt we should stop moaning!)

The UNISON Greater London Regional Office has today cancelled, with a little less than one day’s notice, tomorrow’s Annual Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Committee because of ill health.

I understand that we need not fear that a bug has hit dozens of our staff - the ill health in question is only of a couple of key colleagues. I am sure that I will join with every other UNISON member in the Region in sending best wishes to colleagues who are unwell and wishing them a speedy return to good health.

There will be those who will be perplexed that the Region can find no other officials with appropriate seniority or experience to support the meeting proceeding as planned, bearing in mind that delegates representing 80,000 UNISON members in the local government service group in the Greater London Region will have made arrangements to attend.

Obviously without the presence of the Regional Head of Service Group it would not be possible to do everything as well as we would wish – some reports would have to have been deferred. However, any official could have sat beside the Chair and assisted with the basic business of the AGM (elections and so forth). I take it that most readers of this blog are union activists and will appreciate just what an extreme step it is to cancel an Annual Meeting, particularly of such a key Committee (meeting on the brink of a likely pay dispute in UNISON’s largest service group).

I don’t doubt that there will be those who will not receive the message about the cancellation of the meeting at such short notice in spite of the best efforts of the Regional Office to cancel the meeting.

Perhaps however we should be reassured and impressed that all the other members of our Regional Management Team and all of the many experienced and capable officials servicing our members in local government are so busy with work of vital importance that they cannot cancel their commitments tomorrow to enable the Annual Meeting of the Regional Local Government Committee to go ahead…

I really don’t quite know how to feel about this.

Against immigration controls

Today the Government introduced a “points system” to restrict migration from outside the EU. Trade unionists should give this “nul points”.

Some in the labour movement may secretly welcome restrictions on immigration, believing that we should prioritise reducing the supply of labour in order to reduce downward pressure on wages.

UNISON policy is a little more advanced. UNISON believes;a) that no worker should be classed as illegal; b) all workers have a right to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

That’s why the Union focuses on organising migrant workers.

When it comes to immigration there are those in the labour movement who understand the progressive position adopted by trade unions such as UNISON and those who don’t.

Mass migration isn’t going away any time soon – and there is no reason why socialists and trade unionists should wish that it would. We don't set ourselves in opposition to workers coming from other countries.

Historically craft unions could try to enhance their bargaining power by restricting the supply of labour - but general unions (which is what we are really) have very limited scope to do this. Even if it were possible for us to lobby succesfully to restrict immigration in order to reduce labour supply and drive up wages, the political consequences of pandering to racism would impose unacceptable long term costs upon our movement.

We need to organise the workers who are here to be organised.

We need to continue to build alliances for justice for migrant workers – but we also need to see the trade unions taking on New Labour’s racist immigration policies in public.

Where is the public opposition from the trade unions to today’s development? Here? Here? Here?

Right wing attack on Local Government Pensions

The saloon-bar Tories of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (linked to shadowy Tory backers the Midlands Industrial Council) sometimes produce data of which we can make use – but today they are seeking some cheap publicity by having a go at the cost of our Local Government Pension Scheme.

They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.

Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.

Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.

Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?

No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)

Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??

Local Government Pay - lessons from the past...

I am sorry if I am becoming obsessive about local government pay – but then this is an unashamedly trade union related blog, so I don’t imagine you’re reading it primarily for its entertainment value.

My last post looked at the statistics which show how the real earnings of local government workers have been declining since our last national pay strike – and consequent settlement – in 2002. (I know that I am simplifying things massively in both that post and this – but I think that’s necessary).

The question of course is what to do about this. I think we should look at evidence about what has happened in the past, and try to work out from this evidence what might happen in the future. One valuable source of historical information on local government pay is the report of the Local Government Pay Commission.

It’s four and a half years old of course, but it still contains some useful data, such as the table above, which shows the relationship between NJC pay settlements and earnings growth in private sector services between 1988 and 2002.

This shows that for most of that period, NJC pay settlements were below the rate of earnings growth in private sector services – the exceptions are three consecutive years in the early 1990s (1990-92) and 2002 itself (which was the last settlement before the Pay Commission collated this data).

What accounts for these periods of relatively rapid pay increase in local government? Well, at the risk (again) of oversimplifying, it is pretty obvious that the national pay strikes in 1989 and again in 2002 are both associated with brief periods in which local government pay accelerates above its general trend, which is to grow more slowly than earnings in the private services sector.

Successful national strike action can secure a better pay settlement in the year in which it is taken but can also have a knock on effect for a little while. Without occasional national strike action, local government pay will tend to fall behind. So, I think, we do need to begin to prepare for national strike action.

The question then is, how are we going to organise this to win, in circumstances which are certainly far less favourable than they were in 1989…?

Fed up with falling pay :(

I was pleased to be invited to speak yesterday to the AGM of the Southwark branch of UNISON, in connection with which I was reading some briefing notes produced by UNISON HQ in support of the local government pay claim.

These made the sound point that price rises rather than our pay claims are what is driving inflation (although I did feel a reference to the price of haircuts made me needlessly self-conscious…)

Anyway, it got me looking at labour market statistics, which led me to think that prices certainly have gone up – the all items Retail Price Index having increased by 17.3% between 2002 and 2007. That means roughly that each pound we earned in 2007 could buy what eighty five pence would have bought five years before.

Earnings across the economy as a whole have kept ahead of prices (though not by much) – having increased by 20.6% over the same period, so on average workers are a little less than 3% better off in material terms over those five years. This is what an increase “in real terms” means – it means you can buy more than you could before.

However, taking a fixed point on the local government pay spine (say SCP 28), that has increased by just 15.5% between 1 April 2002 to 1 April 2007, from £19,776 to £22,845. So a local government worker stuck at the top of a grade for those five years is actually worse off in real terms (by 1.5%) than we were five years ago. That means that our salaries are only buying us 98.5% of the goods and services we could afford when we settled the 2002 pay dispute (that's a pay cut "in real terms").

So not only are we falling behind average earnings (by four and a half per cent over the five year period) which pushes us down the “pay league” we are actually worse off than we were. A 6% pay rise (bringing SCP 28 up to £24,216), with the RPI at 4%, in the coming year, would put our pay a grand total of half a per cent higher “in real terms” than it was in 2002.

Implementation of our full claim would just lead to us “catching up” with rising prices, it wouldn’t come near to “matching up” with increasing average earnings. I think we had better do something about this…

Strike action works

UNISON members – taking action with other trade unionists – have achieved some success in a dispute with our largest English local authority employer.

UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.

When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.

It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.

However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.

This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…

LGPS Valentine's Day message...

Like most of you, dear readers, the laying of Statutory Instruments before Parliament was not foremost in my mind on Valentine’s Day.

Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.

Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.

For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.

In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).

Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;

“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”

Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)

The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.

This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?

I await the next update…

London UNISON Labour Link Election

It that time of year again when London region holds its Labour Link elections. Once again we have a choice to elect socialists who will stand for a Labour Link that will take UNISON policy’s into the Labour Party and fincially support MP’s and other representatives though constituency devlopment plans etc who support UNISON policies. For a change to the current leadership of the regional Labour Link who just want the link to be a supporters club for the Brown Government.

The following candidates are being supported by London UNISON Labour left Network for Labour Link elections in The London region.

Regional Committee Seats (Female)

Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Felicity Irwin
Helen Martin
Pam Woods

Regional Committee (Male)

Andrew Berry
Phil Lewis
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Heenal Rajani

National Labour Link Forum (Female)

Lucy Anderson
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Helen Martin
Pam Woods

National Labour Link Forum (Male)

Sean Fox
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux

Labour Party Conference

Katrina Hoogendam

Standing Orders Committee

Andrew Berry

The ballot papers have been sent to the Labour Link Officer or Branch Secretary, the deadline to return them in is 29th Feb. If you can’t locate them contact the regional office.

Also don’t forget to get Branch Delegates elected to the Labour Link Forum taking place on the 26th Feb 4-6pm, House of Commons. Deadline for Branches to register there delegates is 22nd February.

February 14th - Groundhog Day for UNISON

Yes!

We have delivered a Valentines Card to the Government…

Last year it was the local government employers.

In 2002 we sent a card to all MPs, in 2005 only to Scottish MPs.

What an inspired and original tactic…

A tale of two mergers...

Interesting to see two contrasting union mergers announced today. Over on the class struggle wing of the movement members of the OILC are joining forces with the RMT, meanwhile in the quieter pastures of social partnership ACM and ATL have come to an agreement which Brendan Barber describes as “an imaginative new form of union co-operation” although it looks like a carbon copy of the UNISON/FDA vehicle “Managers in Partnership” only for the education rather than the health sector.

Clearly there is room in the movement for both approaches to building trade unionism, but my heart is certainly with the comrades joining the RMT. Offshore workers had been badly let down by the union movement when they were forced to create their own union twenty years ago – and it is good to see the OILC coming back to a TUC affiliated union.

More fun at the UNISON NEC

Having already posted some of the main items of debate at today’s meeting of the UNISON NEC, I’ll just mention a few other topics before the excitement of the day overcomes me.

Among the subjects covered by our General Secretary in a wide ranging report were the following.

UNISON will be protesting about the conduct of (former trade union official) Kim Howells, who got himself photographed alongside a Colombian military unit noted for killing trade unionists.

We will be encouraging members to lobby their MPs to support agency workers by staying at work on a Friday afternoon to back the Private Members’ Bill on 22 February. Lobby your MP now!

UNISON, together with Searchlight and the Daily Mirror, will be backing a major anti-BNP campaign in the run up to the May elections.

In response to a question, Dave confirmed that a campaign against the victimisation of Karen Reissman is now being led by the North West Region. He also offered to discuss with my fellow London NEC member, and Newham UNISON Branch Secretary, Irene Stacey, what further support to offer to victimised Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.

For those with an interest in internal trade union matters I can report that we had a split vote on whether or not to approve a report on internal disciplinary matters, with a majority of those voting approving the report but a larger number of NEC members either not present or not voting.

I was also assured, having made representations at the request of the Greater London Regional Committee about the permissibility of jobsharing seats on the TUC delegation that the composition of the delegation would be reviewed.

A full report will be with London branches in the next couple of days.

Update on Thursday – the official report is now online here.

Equal Pay debate at the UNISON NEC

I can tell you that UNISON’s NEC today discussed Equal Pay. I can’t say much more, although I think I can safely mention campaigning for funding to fill the gender pay gap and that UNISON made a submission to the Discrimination Law Review, since they are pretty much in the public domain anyway.

Beyond that it is pretty safe to say that there is a lot of litigation, case law is developing apace and it all costs a fair bit. Of course this topic relates to the implementation of Single Status in local government, and the NEC sent its support to the 20,000 members who recently took strike action in Birmingham.

For detailed guidance on equal pay issues UNISON activists should continue to look out for the briefings that are taking place. Unfortunately we still won't be debating these issues at Conference, a state of affairs which I think is becoming untenable.

Debate on pay at the UNISON NEC

Appropriately enough the issue of pay was high up the agenda for today’s UNISON NEC meeting, although much of the progress that could be reported related to what is on the website.

It was reported that the NHS employers have yet to make an offer (in the context of discussions about the possibility of a multi-year pay deal which would encompass matters beyond the remit of the Pay Review Body) and that local government employers won’t make an offer until 19 March. Opinion is divided as to whether they will make a single year offer and if so at what level they will pitch it. The Scottish local government employers have just made a very low three year offer.

UNISON’s Service Group Liaison Committee will meet in March to consider the position and we were advised that this is the first time in history that UNISON’s Service Groups have agreed to talk to each other before accepting pay offers. Truly today the UNISON NEC was walking with destiny…

We shall just have to be patient, as I was advised that “anyone with half an ounce of sense” would know that we can’t start talking about strike action when we don’t even have a trade dispute yet. We were also told to concentrate on unity with unions in our own sectors (although bizarrely this doesn’t seem to include likely strike action by a key local government union in April…)

Local Government NEC member Paul Holmes expressed the view that national strike action will be unavoidable and will be supported by members, since the employers won’t make an acceptable offer and our members can’t afford more years of declining living standards. I tend to agree and certainly think it’s prudent to be preparing now for the eventuality of national strike action.

Conference discussion at the UNISON NEC

UNISON’s National Executive Council today welcomed a delegation of trade unionists from Southern Africa attending a Conference on HIV/AIDS. We were also treated to a presentation on green issues, which provided one of the Conference motions to be proposed to National Delegate Conference by the NEC.

The NEC agreed to submit motions on;
Equality through Learning;
Organising;
Palestine;
South Africa and the Region;
Education and Skills;
Employment Rights;
Green UNISON;
NHS at 60;
Housing;
Local Services;
Public Services;
The Economy.

If any UNISON branches in Greater London would like to see copies of the motions please get in touch.

There was a fair bit of discussion about several of the motions, but the approach of our President was to take an affirmative vote and only to consider amending motions if a majority did not back the motion unamended. Few amendments were made to the motions as drafted by the office (NEC motions are not of course generally written by NEC members…)

Health service group rep Kate Ahrens suggested we might put fewer motions on the agenda from the NEC but that idea did not find favour, any more than the sensible suggestion from Yorkshire and Humberside Regional representative, John McDermott, that we might think of inviting the General Secretary of another public service union to address our Conference on the theme of unity over public sector pay.

One missing motion was a proposal from the Finance and Resource Management Committee for a motion on measures necessary to fund the cost of litigation on Equal Pay. The Committee had been advised (informally) that the Standing Orders Committee had indicated that such a motion would likely be ruled out of order. The NEC was therefore advised that these proposals would now appear in the Annual Report to Conference.

I shall return to this topic.

Is now the time for action?

As in comedy so in industrial struggle, timing can be everything. At a branch level you know when it is too early to argue for strike action over impending job losses (when everything is too vague and uncertain for people to be sufficiently worked up about it) and you know when it is too late (when the majority know that they are safe and only a few people face possible redundancy). Getting that moment in the middle isn’t easy.

So I do have some sympathy with those at the top of the movement who can’t quite decide whether this really is the year to stop the public sector pay freeze. Last year UNISON members in health were balloted without a recommendation on pay (and woe betide any who tried to issue recommendations!) In local government we were recommended to reject but in the face of equivocal views from sections of the lay as well as the full-time leadership, our strike ballot delivered a result which did not lead to action. So 2007 wasn’t the year.

I think it should be 2008. I don’t believe anyone who says they think that 2009 looks a better bet. With a General Election likely I fear that there will be a battening down of political hatches. If we don’t fight back against below inflation pay rises this year then we are likely to walk into multi-year pay deals (whether they start this year or next) which will cut the living standards of our members year on year for the foreseeable future.

I have heard a fair bit now about how complex it is to coordinate action on pay between different Unions – indeed between different bits of the same Union! I am sure it is complex, but I think that we have a national leadership precisely in order to do complex and difficult things so I am not persuaded by that argument to the conclusion that we cannot achieve coordination.

I have also heard it said that national strike action is somehow out of date, but this unoriginal argument (which I am sure I first heard parroted by “Eurocommunists” more than twenty years ago) belongs in the undergraduate politics seminar where it was first thought of (particularly since its adherents haven’t the first idea what we can put in place of strike action).

I’ll let you know what is said on Wednesday at the UNISON NEC on this topic. I have heard it said that UNISON has been hostile to calls for action at the TUC, but I’m sure that can’t be right, because such calls are in line with our agreed policy. I expect it was a joke. But then in comedy, as in industrial action, timing can be very important to the humour…

Regional Council Annual General Meeting - London4Change - but changing what?

I said earlier that I would post a further report from Wednesday's meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council Annual General Meeting. Those seeking a somewhat different point of view can find one here. I should stress that what follows are my personal opinions.

This was another well attended Annual General Meeting of our Regional Council, though those attending in such numbers have not been able to make other meetings of the Regional Council quorate since 2005 - we must do better this year.

We managed to agree one policy motion (on pay) and to debate four Rule Amendments (none of which were carried by the required two thirds majority). We therefore failed to reach the majority of the agenda put forward by branches and Committees in the Region. Our Convenor will have to rise to the challenge of chairing future Council meetings in a way which facilitates swifter progress. (it was unfortunate that several obviously unnecessary counts were taken of votes where the show of hands was clearly not that close).

Gloria Hanson (Newham local government) defeated Mandy Berger (Camden local government) for Convenor and Conroy Lawrence (Lewisham hospital) won the position of Deputy Convenor in a contest with Malcolm Campbell (Croydon local government). The elections for other Regional Council officers went with these results so that the candidates of "London4Change" defeated candidates of "the left". The results were very close, as is evidenced from the results in the election of six General seats on the Regional Committee in which each "slate" won three positions.

A victim of the vote was former Equality Convenor, Khi Rafe, who stood as an independent candidate (though clearly supported by the left). Khi had established a high profile in that role over the past year and will be a hard act to follow.

These results are consistent with a margin of victory in single figures at a meeting at which the number of votes cast must have exceeded 250.

The winning side continued their practice of close cooperation with paid officials (delegates uncertain of how to vote were visibly introduced to certain lay activists who helpfully assisted in the completion of ballot papers - although this shouldn't have been necessary since otherwise unmarked voting instructions went so far as to tell those supporting the leadership slate in which order to cast their preferential votes depending upon the initial letter of their surname). If this impressive level of organisation could only be translated to the workplace some of the branches who have such difficulty securing the release of delegates to attend meetings would no doubt be in a better place! Initially I was clear that "London4Change" stood against what they perceive to be the "far left" in our Union. However after two years in which the elected Convenor and Deputy have stood - and been elected - on this basis I am still waiting to see what my colleagues are in favour of (rather than what they are opposed to). This year I learned that "London4Change" are against national strike action on pay, but not what it is that they think should be done positively...

Some local government delegates got the impression that certain leading lights supportive of the winning candidates were also opposed to local government UNISON branches (!) - certain colleagues from health made ill-informed comments about employee relations in local government which appeared to be calculated to sow division between health and local government activists in order to firm up a voting bloc at Regional Council without any thought for the unity or strength of our trade union.

As a member of UNISON United Left I would obviously prefer the Regional Council election results to have been different, but it would be churlish to begrudge the victors their victory or to complain about the level of organisation behind the succesful candidates (indeed if a narrow victory is all that can be achieved with such organisation in the third year of such effort it is very clear that there is a large constituency for lay democracy in the Greater London Region of UNISON).

Those who want to see a lay-led democratic trade union which takes its policies from our membership rather than the odd politics associated with some officials, need to pay more attention to the Union at Regional level. The lack of democratic accountability at Regional level hamstrings us when we are in dispute with employers and undermines campaigns against victimisation.

See you at the June Regional Council comrades, but in the mean time we need to get on with the work in the branches building opposition to Government pay policy and support for UNISON's campaign on pay.

UNISON London Region backs coordinated pay fight

A full and considered report from Wednesday's Annual General Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council will have to wait for the weekend.

Gloria Hanson was elected Convenor and Conroy Lawrence Deputy Convenor and I have sent both my congratulations. The first opportunity for the new team to show leadership will be in Newham on Monday evening – to support victimised activist Michael Gavan (for whom the Regional Committee expressed their full support).

In the brief time I have now I will remark upon the perplexing sight of a small bloc of delegates (including fellow NEC members and Regional Council officers) voting – against the policy of the Regional Committee – against a motion calling for coordinated action over public sector pay (which motion was entirely consistent with UNISON national policy and with what our guest speaker, UNISON President Norma Stephenson, had been saying).

The speaker against the motion rallied a small minority of delegates in opposition with the thought that national strike action is outdated and that we need “new thinking” – quite what this new thinking is about, where it is leading and how it will help our members facing real terms pay cuts we were not told. Perhaps someone who also opposed the motion will be able to elaborate in public on this “new thinking”.

Even stranger, the text of the gist of the speech which was read out by the delegate who spoke against the motion (and some of its keynote imagery of “sabre rattling”) is available online (as an article in the February 2008 edition of the journal of an obscure and secretive political group). If this is the inspiration for “new thinking” on pay I can’t wait!

Happily the Regional Council overwhelmingly agreed the motion for coordinated action on public sector pay and agreed to submit it to National Delegate Conference in the name of the Region.

The duty of all those in leading positions in the Region is now to work to implement the policy to coordinate the fight against the Government’s public sector pay policy – starting with wholehearted support for our comrades in other Unions.

Reactionary pillock of the month?

Just now and again New Labour can still astonish with outbursts of such reactionary stupidity that it takes your breath away.

Our new Housing Minister admitted she was surprised by figures showing that more than half of those of working age living in social housing are without paid work (which suggests she should get out more – maybe for a kebab with the Home Secretary?)

Therefore she wants to threaten tenants with eviction if they are deemed not to be seeking work. I don’t think UNISON members who work to provide social housing will be taken with such nonsense. It is not the job of Housing officers to throw people out of their homes at the behest of the employment service!

Many people without work need help to find decent, well-paid employment, and many of those people live in social housing. The threat of homelessness is not an acceptable tool to be employed by a supposedly Labour Government seeking to achieve this goal. What next? The Workhouse?

Happily Ms Flint says this is all to start a debate (with the cuddly Fabians). I hope that one of the other speakers has a chance to put her right!

London UNISON AGM Wednesday

With no use of UNISON resources I shall pass on the content of an email circulated by my friend and (Labour Party) comrade Malcolm Campbell to London Region UNISON Branches...

Please forward this to your Regional Council delegates and ask them to read it carefully.

I'm writing to urge you to vote for the following people in the election of Regional Council Officers this Wednesday:

Convenor: Mandy Berger

Deputy Convenor: Malcolm Campbell

Finance Convenor: Heenal Rajani

Publicity Officer: Katrina Hoogendam

Equalities Convenor: Khi Rafe

In his election address, Conroy Lawrence (who is standing against me for Deputy Convenor) talks about the Region being "captured by those who take their policies from extreme parties and who are answerable to their political masters and not UNISON's members". He is clearly suggesting that this describes those of us standing against him and his running mates. This is completely untrue.

I'm a member of the Labour Party and have never been a member of any other political party. Heenal, Katrina and Khi are also members of the Labour Party, and Mandy is not a member of any party.

The idea that we won't be answerable to the membership is misleading in the extreme. We're standing on a platform of democracy and accountability, because we believe that the leadership of the Region for the last two years hasn't been allowing the views of the membership to be considered. Debate has been stifled.

Examples of this are:

• An inquorate Regional Council meeting where debate was quite rightly allowed regarding the fight against fascism, but we weren't allowed to discuss the Pensions Dispute, which was at a crucial stage
• Not allowing the Regional Committee to vote on a proposal for a Regional rally on a strike day, when other regions were holding them.
• A consultation exercise regarding the establishing of a Regional Standing Orders Committee which only outlined two alternatives, and not a third which had been proposed, involving a directly elected SOC
• Introducing an SOC comprised of the Regional Council Officers, without the agreement of either the Regional Council or the Regional Committee
• Not allowing a proper debate regarding motions submitted to Regional Council which had been ruled out of order (this was at a meeting of the Regional Committee curtailed after only 10 minutes of the allotted 45, when the Acting Regional Convenor and the Regional Secretary left the room despite there still being a number of people indicating that they wanted to speak!)
• Not allowing a vote at the last Regional Committee on a perfectly valid proposal to commit the Region in principle to a joint union meeting in the future over Public Sector pay

This list isn't exhaustive and demonstrates that the way the Region is currently being run just isn't good enough.

PLEASE VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Malcolm seems to have put it very well...

Although he seems to have forgotten to tell people how to vote depending upon which letter of the alphabet their surname begins with, as is done by the "Congress House" slate (a.k.a. "London for Change" who are committed to no change). Come on now Malcolm!

Progress? Not with this Labour leadership...

It would be easy to ignore vacuous nonsense from Charles Clarke – who says that his priorities are “environmental sustainability, modern and effective public services and our relationship with the EU and the wider world” (thereby skilfully differentiating himself from those in favour of environmental catastrophe, old fashioned and ineffective public services and isolationism).

However it would be a mistake for rank and file trade unionists to take no notice of the latest outpouring of “modernising” twaddle from the Blair babes at Progress. We seem to have spent large parts of the last few years on the sidelines of shadow boxing between the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, during which we were encouraged to put our faith in the allegedly Labour instincts of the latter.

With Gordon Brown’s accession, backed by the nominations of the trade unions, we were supposed to expect a new dawn. Instead we have seen an acceleration of anti-trade union policies and a public sector pay freeze. We should be advancing positive trade union policies for a real Labour programme in opposition to the Government.

Instead some trade union leaders make an absolute priority of the re-election of a notionally “Labour” Government at any price. Others will welcome the re-appearance of a sub-Blairite “opposition” to the Prime Minister in order to justify continued support for the man responsible more than any other for attacking our members’ standard of living. This would be a terrible mistake.

Of course when the Blairites “warn Labour cannot afford to be seen as an "out-of-touch statist leviathan" what they actually mean is that there should be more privatisation and job cuts in the public sector (plus a smattering of talk about “partnership”, “the third sector” and so on). These people are not our friends.

But neither is the architect of the pay freeze. The real political dividing line in this country is not at all between different flavours of New Labour (nor between New Labour and Cameron’s Tories) it is between the political establishment on the one side and the trade unions (and the majority of Labour Party members) on the other.

The sort of modernisation we should want to see is a modern approach to fighting poverty, achieving equality and promoting the rights of workers and trade unions. Will those whose job it is to get political influence for the unions rise to this challenge?

Fighting for the rights of agency workers is a promising sign, but we need much more. We don’t need to take sides in debates at the top of the Labour Party between politicians all of whom are committed to privatisation – we need to mobilise our members to campaign for our policies – and drag along as many of the MPs who claim to be on our side as we can.

Pay matters - pay review bodies don't...

It is good to learn from the UNISON website that the Institute of Fiscal Studies are critical of the “staging” of pay awards – the latest penny-pinching wheeze from a Government determined to make public sector workers tighten our belts whilst ladling cash at the favoured few.

I think the staging of pay awards is wrong because it steals money from the workers. I am less troubled by the fact that this might “undermine the credibility of the review body process.”

What credibility?

If a “pay review body” were to replace collective bargaining on the basis that it guaranteed above inflation pay increases on some sort of “RPI plus x%” formula then that might be acceptable, as might a formula such as that which emerged from the 1977 firefighters dispute which linked earnings for a group of public servants to earnings growth in the economy as a whole.

Pay review bodies in which “experts” make pay awards having considered “evidence” undermine the role of trade unions in negotiating pay without giving us anything worthwhile back. I can see the attraction to those in our movement who think that we should do the best we can by putting sound arguments the Government and then selling the outcome to our members as the best that is possible. For those of us who are trade unionists the attraction is a lot less obvious.

The only good thing about the fact that the Government has taken to stealing from awards made by pay review bodies is that they reveal the fiction upon which the whole process is based.

The Government won’t honour pay awards from pay review bodies if they don’t want to – and trade unionists don’t have to accept such awards if we don’t want to (ask the teachers!)

Now let’s just start preparations for the massive strike action which will be required to wring a fair deal out of this wretched reactionary Government shall we?

A loss to our Union

I learned yesterday that my friend and comrade, Rahul Patel, is moving on from his role as Branch Secretary of UNISON's Westminster local government branch, in which he has done much work for our Union and its members for a number of years.

The branch has a majority of its members in the private sector thanks to the obsessions of the Tory employers - and Rahul, and other branch activists, have faced unique challenges over recent years.

Rahul will be sorely missed. We could do with more such activists.

Defending our liberties...

This excellent piece in today’s Grauniad reminds me of UNISON’s clear policy of opposition to the introduction of ID cards. Against the backdrop of all party support to restore dangerous powers to a police force with a track record of misusing them, (and plans to increase the length of time people can be imprisoned without charge) this country feels more dangerously illiberal with each passing day.

Our trade unions generally adopt good policies on civil liberties, but then soft pedal on them because they aren’t at the centre of our members’ day to day concerns – and because we rely on campaigning organisations to lead the charge.

The state does not exist to protect citizens but to sustain and perpetuate a form of society which does not serve the interests of trade union members – we need to defend liberty so that we can use it to achieve social change. We need to mobilise our members in defence of freedom. ID cards probably give us the sort of opportunity which was presented by the poll tax to develop a campaign of mass non-compliance.

Do we need to return to this topic at UNISON National Delegate Conference? (And will be allowed to debate a topic if we suggest we might be in favour of defying unjust laws…?)

Against the EU treaty (even if we don't want to line up with all its opponents!)

From time to time I have been accused of working with strange – or even fringe – political groups within our movement (usually by those with little knowledge of what is really going on!) However I have encountered a weird sect stranger than most others…

The weirdo eurosceptics of the strange former leftwing sect the “CPBML” are seeking to lead the calls for a referendum on the EU treaty (a.k.a. constitution) in our movement.

It’s nice to see the “comrades” stick their head above the battlements and I hope to meet – in the course of their campaign - some of the paid officials of the labour movement who (anonymously) write all the articles in the little read magazine “Workers” (which is sadly afflicted with an opposition to migrant workers which can best be described as racist)(although to be fair they are also in favour of nuclear energy so their support for the reactionary politics of our ruling class is pretty wide ranging!) There are a significant number of paid officials of various trade unions who owe their position to their current or previous association with this slightly odd political faction – who once knew who was leading the way to the future…

I have been accused (by a nearly literate critic) of living in a “parallel universe” so maybe I am wrong, but I cannot help but observe that whilst our General Secretary criticised in his last Conference speech those who take their instructions from a “central committee” he doesn’t seem to have noticed these weird parasites from a once radical organisation now peddling the politics of the Daily Mail – yet they are influential in our Union and have numerous placemen (and women) in the paid and lay structures. (Any of whom are more than welcome to defend their politics here in their own names – or if one or more of their stooges wants to stick up for their political masters then they too are welcome to do so!)(indeed I will even publish anonymous comments from senior paid officials of my own Union who are associated with this weird political sect – as I often have in the past!)

In the mean time, I would be interested in informed views from real labour movement activists (as opposed to the odd bods of the CPBML) about the EU and the demand for a referendum. For my part, I support the policy of the TUC.

Conference is coming - where's that Rule Book?

It’s getting to be Conference time again…

Which is to say that National Delegate Conference is now four and a half months away, but the deadline for submission of motions and Amendments to Rule is just four weeks away (noon on the 26th February).

Since most branches of the Union hold monthly meetings of their Branch Committee – and since Conference motions have to be agreed at a quorate meeting of either the Branch or Branch Committee, now is the time to be drafting those motions (or Rule Amendments).

At last week’s meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee (which I am afraid I missed as I was sitting an exam) there was some discussion about whether to propose reducing the thirteen week qualifying period for entitlement to legal representation. A view was (probably rightly) taken that such a proposal would stand a better chance of success coming from a branch or Region than from the NEC.

I do think we need to reduce the qualifying period for legal assistance. It is utterly daft to try to organise (for example) a new employer on the basis that we cannot guarantee to provide effective support if the employer response promptly with hostility. This will no doubt be debated again at Conference this year.

I am also interested in Rule Amendments which would clarify the role of Conference as the “supreme Government” of the Union (to use the lovely old phrase in the Rule Book). There are a variety of specific Rules which give powers to the National Executive Council which, it has been argued, are exceptions to this general rule about the supremacy of Conference. These cover areas including the interpretation of the Rules themselves, the granting of legal assistance, approval of industrial action and the employment of staff.

It is, for example, because the Rule Book gives sole responsibility for the employment of staff to the NEC that recent attempts even to debate the principle of the election of officials have been ruled out of order. If we wish to have a trade union in which important questions can be debated, we probably need to pay a little more attention this year than we have recently to Rule Amendments.

Conference may or may not choose to give a two thirds majority to Rule Amendments asserting its authority vis-à-vis the NEC (or for that matter the Standing Orders Committee – SOC) but it should probably be given the choice.

Learn from the teachers...?

Good news from the National Union of Teachers, who are to ballot for strike action over pay in the next battle over the Government’s pay restraint policy. Their pay body is proposing just 2.45%, amounting to a real terms pay cut of 1.55%! For many younger teachers (as for many young workers in the public sector) the irony (on which Dave Prentis comments) of a Government basing its pay policy on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) which is rising around 2% but linking interest payments on student loans to the Retail Price Index (RPI) – which truly represents living costs and is rising above 4% - is a little too bitter to appreciate.

The TUC are pledged to coordinate action over public sector pay – although TUC President (and our own General Secretary) did emphasise to the UNISON NEC that this means first and foremost organising “sector by sector” unity.

I am not particularly taken with this sectional approach, but if that is the approach which the leadership is to adopt then let’s see it put into practice now. Local Government workers have submitted pay claims which we know the employers will reject.

We cannot be in any doubt that the employers in local government will not offer us a deal in line with the Retail Price Index, the very least we could even consider settling for. Therefore if the teachers are moving to take action, we need to be preparing ourselves to do the same.

Every local government worker who has ever been on strike knows that united action between teachers and other local government workers maximises the impact of our action.

The TUC are talking to the Government – that’s fine. What we need now though is united action. We have warned the Government, now we need to organise to give that warning meaning.

Discussion should begin now about whether it will be possible to coordinate action between as many teaching unions as possible and as many other local government unions as possible.

Watch this space? Or maybe this one?

More thoughts on five activists and three wise monkeys

I promised – in response to comments from DM Andy on an earlier post – to discuss a little further the interesting debate which took place at the Lambeth UNISON Branch Annual General Meeting (and which has been continuing in the branch since) concerning what has come to be known as the “three wise monkeys” leaflet distributed at UNISON Conference, the subsequent formal disciplinary investigation by the Union into a number of activists and the “Defend the Five” campaign set up in response.

Since the background is fairly well reported online I shall summarise it briefly. Some UNISON branches in London agreed to prepare and circulate a leaflet at last year’s National Delegate Conference critical of the practice of the Standing Orders Committee in ruling out of order so many motions.

This leaflet appeared at Conference illustrated with a graphic of “three wise monkeys” (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) and some delegates felt that this graphic amounted to an offensive, even a racist attack upon the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee (who is a black man). These views were expressed forcefully on behalf of black members in particular.

This criticism was voiced at Conference but the authors of the leaflet were not able to respond formally as the matter had already by that stage been referred to an internal UNISON investigation (the eventual outcome of which is still awaited but which could lead to formal disciplinary action against the authors of the leaflet with outcomes up to and including expulsion).

There has been some criticism of the leaflet’s authors for the perceived inadequacy (if not downright absence) of a proper apology for any offence which was caused by the leaflet, although a comment on the earlier post on this blog rightly points out that the branches associated with the leaflet were not permitted to make any open statement (including any apology) at Conference once the matter was subject to investigation (although that does not mean that no apology could be given).

Supporters of the authors of the leaflet have set up a campaign, with a website and a Facebook group, in their defence. They perceive this matter from the perspective of a dispute between the rank and file left in the Union and the Union machine wishing to stifle critics. There continues however to be concern within the Black Members self-organised group at Regional and National level that the leaflet did cause genuine offence and that the campaign in defence of its authors does not appear to recognise this. This view was expressed eloquently at the Lambeth UNISON Branch AGM as follows “this is not about an attack on the left or an attack on the right, this is an attack on black people.”

The Lambeth Branch AGM had before it a motion agreed for submission by the Branch Committee the previous day which drew from the “Defend the Five” campaign. This attracted some criticism from comrades from the Black Workers Group who felt that the imagery of the “three wise monkeys” could indeed have been taken as an offensive racist attack upon the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee at National Delegate Conference.

Those who thought the leaflet might genuinely have been perceived as offensive did not argue that they thought this was the intention of the authors, nor did they support the action being taken against them. Those who thought that the priority was to defend activists who appeared to be facing a politically motivated attack did not take issue with the suggestion that the leaflet might genuinely have caused offence.

The end result of the discussion was that the motion was referred to the branch Black Workers Group for debate and subsequent further debate at the Branch Committee. The intention of all participants in the debate is to arrive at a consensus reflecting the considerable common ground between the views expressed at the Annual General Meeting.

Since then the debate has continued and I am indebted to one of our shop stewards who contributed the following to the debate;

“Below is a short history of the Three Wise Monkeys. I have highlighted the last point in the hope that it clarifies the issue.
Together they embody the proverbial principle to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil.
Sometimes there is a fourth monkey depicted with the three others; the last one, Shizaru, symbolizes the principle of "do no evil". He may be covering his abdomen or crotch, or just crossing his arms.
Meaning of the proverb
Just as there is disagreement about the origin of the phrase, there are differing explanations of the meaning of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."
In Japan the proverb is simply regarded as a Japanese Golden Rule
Some simply take the proverb as a reminder not to be snoopy, nosy and gossipy.
Early associations of the three monkeys with the fearsome six-armed deity Vajrakilaya link the proverb to the teaching of that cult that if we do not hear, see or talk evil, we ourselves shall be spared all evil. This may be considered similar to the English proverb "speak of the Devil - and the devil appears."
Others believe the message is that a person who is not exposed to evil (through sight or sound) will not reflect that evil in their own speech and actions.
Today "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a wilfull blind eye to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.”

This corresponds with what you can read online.

Where does this take us?

Well, I don’t want to prejudge the discussions which I hope we will now have in Lambeth, but I don’t think that expressing my personal opinion as it is now will do that.

The criticism of the Standing Orders Committee which the authors intended was a legitimate criticism, the essence of which was shared by many at Conference. It would have been so much better done without the “three wise monkeys”!

Although I entirely accept that the authors of the leaflet had no intention of offending anyone with the slightest suggestion of racism – and the history of the imagery which they employed supports this – nevertheless I think that in all the circumstances the use of the “three wise monkeys” was unfortunate to say the least. On the face of it, it did offend some of those who saw it. I think that this has to be accepted, and that to accept it is in no sense to line up with any unwarranted attack upon the authors.

That this could not be resolved at Conference is a consequence of the speed with which the matter was turned into a complaint to be investigated rather than a concern to be resolved. Turning this issue into a complaint investigation created a momentum which is hardly helpful to the best interests of UNISON, and it is understandable that those who perceived themselves to be under attack have mounted a vigorous defence.

There are two dimensions to this question and both have to be taken into account. To see this simply as an issue about an attack upon leftwing activists writes out of the story the genuine sense of offence felt by some of those who saw the leaflet at Conference and perceived – and therefore experienced – it as racist. However, to see this as simply an issue about UNISON’s opposition to racism is to ignore the glaringly obvious political context. Neither approach deals with what is going on.

My view as things stand is that it is quite right to stand in solidarity with Glenn, Kaz, Brian, Matthew and Suzanne, and to make clear that a draconian response to criticism of the Conference leaflet will provoke a very serious dispute within the Union. However, in standing alongside these comrades we have also to say to the “Defend the Five” campaign that it is not good enough simply to say that no racism was intended or that the history of the “three wise monkeys” means that racism cannot have been perceived. Racism was perceived and the five activists can and should make more clear that they apologise unreservedly for the offence to which their leaflet unintentionally gave rise.

It is never a sign of weakness to apologise for a mistake. Indeed I note from a comment on the earlier post that a letter of apology was sent to the Standing Orders Committee and National Black Members Committee.

I think that the way forward should be to build upon this apology in order to address and respond to the offence that was caused – not to pursue formal disciplinary action in circumstances in which this will lead inexorably to a major avoidable confrontation.

Apologies for the length of this post (that’s the trouble with blogs, no one subedits my ramblings…) Apologies for the absence of hypertext links also (I am learning Linux and OpenOffice...)

Defend Union activists - whoever attacks them...

This is one of those posts where you do need to remember the disclaimer on this blog (and – for my readers at UNISON HQ – this is all being done on my home computer!!) I have blogged here a fair bit recently about the importance of defending trade union activists, such as Karen Reissman and Michael Gavan, who are under attack from the employers.

Sometimes we also have to defend trade union activists under attack from within our own movement.

At a meeting of the Lambeth UNISON Branch Committee this morning, activists were shocked to hear details of internal disciplinary action being threatened within UNISON against five London activists facing allegations of racism in connection with a leaflet critical of the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) at last year’s UNISON Conference.

The leaflet used the graphic of “three wise monkeys” (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) to illustrate reasoned criticism of the enthusiasm with which the SOC was ruling out of order contentious or controversial motions for debate at the Conference. Some delegates felt that the use of this graphic was racist.

This is the sort of dispute that can all too easily crop up at a trade union Conference – and that is where it should have been resolved. If delegates were offended then the branches concerned could have been asked to apologise since it was clear that they never intended to offend.

Instead the Union has launched into a formal disciplinary investigation – and the possibility of disciplinary action against the activists. The five officers, under investigation are Glenn Kelly NEC member and Bromley branch secretary, Onay Kasab, Greenwich Branch secretary, Brian Debus and Matthew Waterfall, Hackney branch chair and secretary respectively and Suzanne Muna, housing corporation branch secretary.

One thing these five have in common is that they – and their branches – are leftwing critics of the Union leadership. To take formal disciplinary action over this matter would be so grossly disproportionate that it would appear to be politically motivated. I am afraid that this is not the only example of over the top disciplinary action against left wing activists within the Union. (You might almost think that elements of the Union leadership lack the confidence that they can win an argument with the left in front of the membership and are resorting to administrative measures to silence critics!)

UNISON activists need to make very clear that any such unwarranted and unjustified political attack would lead to a strong, united and wide ranging response. UNISON needs to concentrate upon defending our members interests – not on witch hunting socialists. Further details are online here.

Brendan warns Gordon with words. What about deeds?

Brendan Barber is not a happy bunny!

In today’s Guardian he berates the Government for its plans to hold down the living standards of public servants. This is of course fitting in the leader of a trade union centre which now has its last source of strength in the public sector.

However, he does not conclude with a stirring call to industrial action but with a warning about the potential electoral consequences of disappointing six million voters.

It’s a fair point, but one which the trade unions could be making with more force. What Brendan implies is correct – given a Labour Government which attacks our standard of living, public sector workers will, in some numbers, be driven away from supporting Labour.

Some will (foolishly) vote Tory or Liberal, some will (perhaps more understandably) experiment with radical alternatives (some see the nationalists and the Greens in this light). However, there is no prospect of the trade union leadership doing anything whatsoever to focus the political pressure to which they are eager to allude.

Without some conscious effort on the part of the union leaderships to apply meaningful political pressure upon the Government this invocation of the electoral consequences of parsimony looks like nothing so much as an attempt to avoid the hard work involved in organising industrial action, and to appear critical of a Government for whose re-election we will work tirelessly for fear of something worse.

There are those who offer the unions the alternative of breaking altogether with the Labour Party, whether directly or through limited support for other candidates. I am afraid that the recent implosions of both the Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, together with the consistent failure of any other far left force to achieve significant electoral progress make it inconceivable that this argument will make much headway in the near future. I am certainly not persuaded!

Does this leave us to moan about the policies of a Labour Government whilst we continue to write cheques to, and devote energy to the Labour Party without question or influence?

It needn’t.

The trade unions had an opportunity to back a challenge to Gordon Brown in the leadership election and the leadership failed to do so. Yet we still have the option of lining the trade unions up alongside those in the Labour Party who support our policies.

We threw away our right to make policy at Conference – we need to reclaim the right to fight for the interests of our members at every level within the Labour Party, from the branch all the way down to the Parliamentary Party. This means fighting against the Party leadership and alongside the left.

This is not an alternative to industrial action – that is what is needed to take on Gordon Brown’s disgraceful public sector pay policy. However we can obtain greater political influence for our industrial action through the most effective use of our potential political weight.

Hinting that our members might stay home come election day, whilst we remain committed to getting them all out to vote Labour come what may, is a very poor use of the power of our movement. Come on Brendan, buck your ideas up!

Public sector getting ripped off...

The latest news from the Department for stating the obvious is that the National Audit Office have spotted that the public sector is getting fleeced by private contractors (obviously further reports on the Catholicism of the Pope and the toilet habits of bears are in the pipeline…)

This is something that those of us who work in public services know all too well. Private contractors are not our “partners” and they don’t exist, as public sector bodies do, in order to provide services – they exist to maximise shareholder value, which means you have to watch them like hawks.

It is all very well the NAO and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee berating the public sector managers who are “allowing themselves” to be ripped off. The problem is not about competency. It is a structural problem.

We should be bringing as many services back in-house as we can, and funding the development of public services with public money in the public sector. Public-private partnerships are simply a device to siphon taxpayers money into the pockets of shareholders.

Don't do it Glenn!

With apologies to those who are not interested in internal UNISON elections I have to write one of those blog posts which is not posted using any Union resources.

The elections to UNISON's Service Group Executives are due and candidates are requesting nominations. In London, local government branches are being asked for nominations for the male seat by respected left-wing incumbent David Eggmore, current chair of the National Joint Council committee, Regional Finance Convenor, John Gray (from the right) and NEC member (and Socialist Party leading light) Glenn Kelly.

Two years ago David held the seat in a straight left-right election against John Gray. Glenn's intervention threatens to split the left vote and let a right wing candidate in. On the face of it this is incredibly daft because Glenn is already a full voting member of the body to which he is now seeking election. As a member of the National Executive Council elected to represent the local government service group, Glenn is a member of the Service Group Executive with the right to both speak and vote. Were Glenn to hold both his NEC seat and the SGE seat currently held by David Eggmore, he would hold two seats on the SG with only one vote.

London has three seats on the Local Government Service Group Executive (SGE), another of the seats is falling vacant as Jean Geldart, currently Chair of the SGE is standing down. This, I am afraid, explains why Glenn is pursuing this bizarre course of action. As an NEC member on the SGE, Glenn can speak and vote but is ineligible to be elected as Chair of the SGE. He believes that he, and only he, can challenge current Vice-Chair, Chris Tansley, to be Chair of the SGE after the elections. I have yet to speak to an SGE member (other than Glenn) who believes that Glenn could win such an election, nor even that he would be the best candidate to stand against Chris Tansley.

Glenn has pointed out that David could potentially be re-elected indirectly to the SGE through his membership of the National Joint Council Committee (of which he is Chair). This rather massively misses the point that Glenn himself is already a member of the SGE. Even if David were simply to stand aside for Glenn (as Glenn believes that he should) there is no guarantee that Glenn would win an election against John Gray, who could campaign on the basis that his opponent is already a member of the SGE. John is gearing up for a serious (if not perhaps entirely forthright) campaign (his request for nominations omits to mention his Labour Party membership, of which readers of his blog will know he is very proud!)

With truly legendary chutzpah Glenn has tried to present David's decision to seek re-election to the SGE, and the decision of many leftwing activists to back him, as sectarian manoeuvring against himself and the Socialist Party.

On the contrary, David is an incumbent left-wing candidate who has done a good job, particularly in recent years. It is Glenn who has to explain why the prospect of his failed candidacy for Chair of the SGE is so vital that it is more important than the unity of the left in the Union.

Far from wishing to do down the Socialist Party, left wing candidate Sonya Howard, who is seeking nominations to the vacant seat currently held by Jean Geldart and is supporting and supported by David Eggmore, offered to stand aside and lend her support to a woman candidate from the Socialist Party. With a campaign uniting the left in London this offer could have led to the addition of another member to the SGE from the Socialist Party, something that Glenn's election would not do (since he is already a member of the SGE). Unfortunately, Glenn rejected this proposal and has issued a request for nominations.

I have worked alongside Glenn Kelly for many years. I respect and admire him (although we do not always agree) and I consider him a friend. It is with great sorrow that I see my friend about to make this terrible mistake.

Glenn is seeking nominations to a body of which he is already a full voting member simply because he cannot conceive that there could be another candidate of the left in the election to Chair that body. I have more confidence in friends and comrades on the Service Group Executive. I believe that those who are elected to the Service Group Executive and who wish to see a serious fight against the Government’s pay policy will be well able to find from amongst their number a candidate to Chair the SGE – perhaps even a candidate who can win.

Glenn appears to believe that if he is not there to stand then no one else in a Union with over a million members is capable of doing so. That could be characterised as perhaps a little self-absorbed. More importantly it is just plain wrong.

When, as I hope and believe, our Union acquires a more militant leadership, I hope that Glenn and his comrades will be a part of that. We need to find ways to work together as socialists, much as we may disagree about many things. I believe that the United Left made a serious attempt to compromise with the desire of our comrades in the Socialist Party to stand candidates in the elections to the SGE – this failed because one individual believes that he is the only possible leader for local government workers.

Well, Glenn, you are often right mate. But this time you are badly wrong.

Equal Pay moving centre stage?

For a long time the media have been more or less ignoring the massive problem of implementing equal pay in the public services – now you can hardly turn the Today programme on without hearing someone talk about it!

Last week Brian Strutton of the GMB acquitted himself well in a debate with notorious “no win no fee” lawyer Stefan Cross. Yesterday, Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights was calling for representative legal action to be possible in order to unblock the employment tribunal system which is overloaded with equal pay cases.

The CEHR appear to be heading towards backing the phased introduction of equal pay in order to limit disputes, such as that in Birmingham, over pay protection for those who lose out. If we don’t get sufficient funding from central Government to provide adequate protection and fair back pay then perhaps this compromise is unavoidable.

Capitalisation – allowing local authorities to borrow to meet the one off costs of implementing equal pay – has given some authorities room to manoeuvre but the real answer would be for the Government to remember where it keeps those billions of pounds which were available for Northern Rock or for the Iraq war and to apply some of them to funding the implementation of single status…

Equal Pay in 2008?

Today’s Guardian flags up one of the major issues which will continue to confront UNISON in 2008. It’s good to read comment which is not simply advertising the services of the “no win no fee” lawyers.

The fundamental problem which faces employers and unions in local government is the lack of central funding – we need to step up our campaign on this issue.

At the moment we are more than a little hamstrung in campaigning on Equal Pay by the legal advice that we can’t discuss the issue in our Conferences and Regional Councils for fear that someone will say something that could be used in evidence against the Union. Also the sheer volume of litigation is clearly taking up the time and energy of our senior officials to such an extent that we aren’t taking the political initiative as we should.

Gordon Brown told the TUC in 2005 that “our aim is to end once and for all the gender pay gap in our country.” It is a laudable aim, and it requires further reaching social change than can be achieved by either litigation or collective bargaining – but it also requires money. We need to step up the pressure on the Government – and those who aspire to exert influence on behalf of our movement need to raise their game.