Tories attack workers rights (no change there then)

The Tories have opened up a bit of “clear blue water” with a daft attack upon the miserably few rights individual workers have.

The odious Alan Duncan has pleased the management stooges at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) with an attack on the employment tribunal system.

Duncan thinks it is too easy for workers to get into the employment tribunals. He also seems to think that the tribunals never award costs against an unsuccesful claimant, proving I suppose that Cameron hasn’t stopped the Tories being “the stupid party.” Since 2001 tribunals have had powers to award costs if a party - or his/her representative - has acted "vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of the proceedings by a party has been misconceived”.


The CIPD jokers reckon that employers should behave well because it is good for business and not because they are required to do so by regulations. This only goes to show that pretend academic disciplines such as “Human Resource Management” aren’t good for developing intellectual rigour. There are different approaches to management out there in the world and plenty of employers are maximising profits by attacking the interests of their workforce without reference to CIPD notions of “good practice.”

There are good employers and good managers out there who want to do right by their workforce in spite of operating within a system that works in the opposite direction– but there are plenty of the other sort of employers, managers (and HR professionals!) out there. I encounter them regularly – and if you are a Union activist or officer doing your job then you do too.

The problem with employment tribunals is not that it is too easy to get access to them but that it is too difficult for workers to get access to the advice and representation that they need to enforce their rights against hostile employers.

Workplace organisation, backed up where necessary by industrial action, is a better guarantee of our rights than litigation, but workers need the capacity to enforce our legal rights. In UNISON we need to reconsider the overly cautious approach to bringing tribunal applications about which I have blogged before.

Under any Government we need unions which will use every tool to defend our members.

One law for the rich?

Regular readers (Sid and Doris blogger) will not have been wondering if the lack of posts here reflects my profound concern at the suspension of Jonathan Ross – and will have been right not to do so.

My recent silence is attributable to pressure of work in the branch, where the daily grind of redundancy threats, disciplinary hearings and random general nonsense is as normal and a bit moreso.

Much as I am always inclined to defend workers facing disciplinary action for a daft mistake it is hard to work up sympathy for celebrities who earn telephone number salaries when local government workers can lose their jobs for misdemeanours which have nothing whatsoever to do with our work.

The latest purge from employment of those who have misused “Blue Badges” (disabled parking permits) seems to me very objectionable. Using such a permit when you ought not is a serious matter and if you are caught doing so you can be prosecuted and get a criminal record and a fine of up to £1,000 for each offence. Fair enough if you’re guilty.

But if you are a local government worker you can find that as well as that you will face disciplinary action at work and could well lose your job (and then try getting another job in local government in a hurry when you have been sacked for gross misconduct!) Other public service workers may be prosecuted but won’t necessarily face the sack as well.

Increasingly local government workers are subject to “Codes of Conduct” which seek to police every area of our lives, way beyond the legitimate interest of the employer in matters which might be thought to have a bearing on our contract of employment.

A million miles from the limelight in which Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross will remain (earning millions) in spite of misbehaviour which would have got them sacked where I work, people are being thrown out of employment for wrongdoing which has nothing to do with their work.

Solidarity with PCS

Good luck to members of the civil service union, PCS, striking over pay on 10 November.

The Government's rigid imposition of its 2% pay limit on its own direct employees contrasts with the slightly less enthusiastic observance of the limit elsewhere in the public sector.

However, all public sector workers would doubtless be better off if our leaders had shown the same consistent enthusiasm for joint strike action which has been shown by PCS. With the exception of Higher Education workers we have all seen our pay cut in real terms in 2008.

Investing in higher pay for public servants would reflate the economy and help combat the recession, but somehow I doubt that is going to be top of the Government's “to do” list unless we do much more to put it there.

Regional Policy Day

I missed much of the Regional Policy Day as I had to attend my Branch Committee (about which you will soon be able to read on the soon-to-be-relaunched Branch blog).

However I was present for the contribution of Richard Ascough, Secretary of the GMB Southern Region.

Clearly there is some thought being given to a UNISON-GMB merger, although perhaps GMB are just on the rebound and are only doing it to make UNITE jealous...

There is no overwhelming industrial logic to a merger outside local government, but within local government the logic is so compelling that it seems mad not to pursue this possibility.

I do wonder though - if we are going to go for massive "super unions" whether we might not be better merging UNISON, GMB and UNITE and getting it all done at once?

We could call the new union VERDI?

Or maybe not...

Paul Kenny, a man of many parts as Londoners who do not know soon will, has a fine track record of dancing with UNISON NEC members. What sort of dance is he inviting us all to now? And is he offering to cook us breakfast?

Watch this space.

A bit of politics...

I am so old that I remember when Ben Elton was funny doing stand-up.

As the BBC link above says; “the alternative comedy movement of the 1980s provided the perfect home for his anti-Thatcher material, (Oooh! Little bit of politics there)” and, since the economy seems to be heading back to the 80s I’ll add a little bit of politics to the blog in honour of those memories, and in the context of the continuing debate about UNISON’s political funds.

Trade unions – about which I am normally droning on here – are pretty much a consistent feature of every developed capitalist economy. As workers in a society where everyone is supposed to be pursuing their own interests we generally manage to work out that we are stronger together in the workplace.

It’s a small leap from there to realise that we need political influence for our interests as workers beyond the workplace also – not least since the law isn’t on our side.

In this country, a little over a hundred years ago, the original Labour Representation Committee became the Labour Party, the peculiar British manifestation of social democracy, with a federal structure and a very particular organisational link to trade unionism.

Ever since, socialists in the trade unions have faced the dilemma of how to relate to a political party which has generally commanded the support of working people whilst, when in office, frequently betraying or attacking us in return for that support.

Some socialists who were in at the start left pretty much straight away, whilst others left in the 30s. Some tried to affiliate and weren’t allowed in, and others were witch hunted out. In the mean time socialists within the Labour Party have organised in one way or another over the years – and continue to do so.

Anyone active in trade unions will have experienced the debate between those within and without the Labour Party from time to time. This debate has become more acute under New Labour, whose leaders generally revel in their hostility to trade unionism.

Certainly, now more than ever, we need trade unions to speak up for the interests of our members – as I think the UNISON NEC did over the financial crisis. This will require trade unions to be prepared to be assertive in promoting independently the interests of our members. This won’t be achieved by an approach which celebrates the illusion of influence over Government Ministers.

I have a very great deal of sympathy for some of those, particularly in unions not affiliated to the Labour Party, who want to see the development of a political party which would represent the interests of working people in the way in which our Party in Government hardly has.

I also understand why some of those elected to senior positions in the Labour Party, or even in the Parliamentary Labour Party itself cease to stomach what Liz Davies called the “cult like atmosphere” of New Labour. It must be much easier to remain in the same political party as most of the present Government if you never have to meet them!

However, there is no immediate prospect of a serious political alternative to the left of the Labour Party, nor is there any evidence that those socialists who have left the Labour Party in the past twenty five years (whether voluntarily or otherwise) have made the emergence of such an alternative any more likely by their departure.

I know that to many of my friends and comrades in the unions the idea that I believe in working for socialism as a Labour Party member is almost laughable. I certainly agree it’s a long shot – but no longer than the alternative dream of a “new workers Party” (in any of its variants).

The truth is – sadly – that the only honest answer to the question of how we achieve lasting political progress towards socialism (in the long term interests of trade union members) is “I don’t know.” What I do know is that socialists should be active trade unionists and need to work together. In this way we can all maximise our usefulness in the struggles out of which we may find an answer to that question.

The contribution which those of us who are in the Labour Party can make to such joint working depends upon our being serious about our own politics. To secure a political voice for working people we need to reconstitute a Labour Party – we cannot do this by working exclusively with those inside the Party, but we cannot do it from outside either.

I would like to think that the forthcoming review of UNISON’s political fund will be an occasion for some serious thought about these questions. After all, every socialist who holds a Labour Party card has to be an optimist…

Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

With today’s news about the interim payment of the 2008 pay offer to local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland coming hot on the heels of the request that UNISON branches consult our members about the 2009 pay claim, I begin to feel that local government pay rises could become like buses. You wait ages for one to come along and then two arrive at once.

After all, the reason why we are welcoming the interim payment of a pay offer against which we took strike action, more than six months after it was due, is that we don’t know how long it will be before we get the outcome of the award from the arbitrators to whom we decided to refer the claim. By the time we have settled the 2008 pay claim it will be time to be considering how to fight for fair pay in 2009.

So, as well as considering what the pay claim for 2009 ought to be, the time is right now to start thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of what we have done in 2008 – and how we might do better in future. And I’ll blog about that just as soon as I have worked out what to spend my 2.45% on…

UNISON NEC report to UNISON branches

This is a personal report, sent to London UNISON branches, from the meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) which took place on Wednesday 8 October. An official report will also be circulated and is available online at http://www.unison.org.uk/activists/nec.asp.

The meeting commenced with a lengthy and thorough report on Equal Pay with reference to the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in the Allen and Bainbridge cases. Given the scale of litigation around this subject I will not report further here – at the request of NEC members, further official guidance will be issued shortly (and for those local government branches involved in Single Status negotiations there will be another Regional briefing session soon). Up to date guidance is available online via the main Equal Pay page at http://www.unison.org.uk/equalpay/index.asp.

The meeting received an update on public sector pay negotiations from the Deputy General Secretary which provided a factual update on the current state of play. In response to a question which had been raised with me by a branch I asked about whether branches involved in the NJC pay dispute could approach their employer for payment now “on account” of the 2.45% offer pending the outcome of the arbitration (as this may not be known before Christmas). It was confirmed by the Chair of the Service Group, Chris Tansley, that it was acceptable for branches to do this and that a similar request had been made nationally but no publicity had been issued about that request so as to avoid raising expectations. Local Government branches may wish to discuss coordinating such requests to employers.

Keith Sonnet also introduced a report on the Local Government Pension Scheme – including the news that on the 25 September there was a dramatic development
with the Association of Local Authority Advisors (ALAMA) issuing advice to its members
saying that, in their view, the certification test for medical retirement under the new scheme falls outside their competence. They are
advising members that any decision could be open to challenge. Effectively ALAMA
has now withdrawn its work as medical advisor to the LGPS!

The NEC received a report on the review of the effectiveness of our Political Funds, agreed by Conference when it passed Motion 63 as amended. This is being led by the (wonderfully titled) “Objective 3 Scrutiny Group” which was established to lead the last review of the Political Funds. The final report of this review will go to Conference in 2010 and initially research is to be undertaken on the political engagement of trade unions and survey of UNISON members and activists.

A report was also received on the new Head Office for UNISON, costs for which have risen recently. By December (when the NEC next meets) there should be greater certainty about the costs of this project.

The General Secretary, under his report, asked the NEC to endorse a statement on the financial crisis which had been agreed by the Policy Committee the previous day. The full statement, which was endorsed unanimously, can be read online here http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=4884. It was agreed that members would expect UNISON to make demands of a Government which was able to set aside hundreds of billions of pounds to bail out the banking industry but which could not find the funds for public services.

As the NEC statement rightly says; “thirty years of deregulation, privatisation, financialisation, tax-cutting and tax-evasion have resulted in an unprecedented widening of inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and a massive burden of risk transferred to the many. The neo-liberal era has ended in failure. We need now to begin to rebalance our monetary and fiscal framework, our system of taxation, our regulatory regimes and our overall pattern of investment and economic development.”

I pointed out that since no mainstream political party was currently willing to express an alternative to the failing “neoliberal” economic policy consensus, it was up to the trade unions to set out such an alternative. Obviously we also need to campaign around this statement. We were assured that the Union nationally would be sending this statement to Members of Parliament. Branches should also circulate the statement to their members and encourage members to write to their local MP to ask that they support our Union's demands. Members can access details of their MP (and contact them electronically) at http://www.writetothem.com/.

Branches could also organise meetings to discuss the statement and to invite speakers to explain the crisis and the alternative which UNISON supports. Delegates who attended the Regional Council on the following day will have heard UNISON MP Jeremy Corbyn promising to pursue support for this statement in the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn reported to the Regional Council that there will be a meeting at the House of Commons organised by the Left Economics Advisory Panel on the evening of Monday 13 October at which UNISON MP Kelvin Hopkins will be speaking – details of that meeting are available online at http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/#econ. The meeting is open to the public and will take place at 7.30pm in Committee Room 10 at the House of Commons (if you are thinking of attending it is worth getting along a bit early to get through the security checks).

The General Secretary went on to report from a meeting of the TUC Public Service Liaison Group on the previous day, which had begun to consider how to better coordinate public sector pay negotiations. This discussion, including the possibility of unified public sector pay negotiations directly with the Government will be pursued further at a meeting of all public sector unions in mid November. It was reported that the national demonstration which had been agreed by the TUC at UNISON's request will take place early in the spring. My personal view – which I expressed – was that we had made a mistake last year in focusing on building unity only sector by sector (an initiative which failed in our largest service groups this year).

Whilst our members are certainly very unhappy at real terms pay cuts we all know how difficult it is to win support for the industrial action which is clearly necessary if we are to stop the attack on our living standards. In my view, united action across the public sector (on the basis of a “coalition of the willing” of unions who are prepared to take action) could shift the Government and could secure the support of our members for action. It is a shame that UNISON has not been willing or able to achieve such unity over the past year. Our members are paying the price for this failure.

The General Secretary invited the Chair of UNISON's Labour Link Committee to give a report from UNISON's intervention at Labour Party Conference. The meeting was entertained with a list of fringe meetings attended and UNISON speakers. Some other NEC members were not persuaded that UNISON had achieved the significant progress which had been reported to the meeting.

If any branches have any questions or would like to have a personal report to your branch or Branch Committee please get in touch to j.rogers@unison.co.uk.

Development and Organisation Committee Report

Here, for those who may be interested in such things, is the report I have circulated to London UNISON branches from last week's meeting of the D&O Committee;

The Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee met on Tuesday 7 October ahead of the meeting of the National Executive Council (NEC) the following day.

The Head of Recruitment introduced the latest recruitment statistics. UNISON's projected annual recruitment rate is 1.2% (which compares with the GMB rate of 2.5%) this varies considerably between Regions.

The Committee then considered a report from our Head of Recruitment (Alan Kerr) and academic Jeremy Waddington on a survey of UNISON members to assess the impact of our national organising and recruitment plan on recruitment.

The main reason people join the Union is to have support at work should a problem arise – and so it is encouraging that member satisfaction with representation has increased since the last survey in 2002. Interestingly over a third of members report that they have joined UNISON on their own initiative (without being asked) and another 40% join on the recommendations of friends or colleagues – the proportion of members recruited by shop stewards is far smaller.

The Committee was recommended to agree that each Region works proactively with a small number of branches who are motivated to grow in order to develop new approaches. Further surveys of how recommendations from colleagues lead to members joining the Union are to be undertaken in order to support a “marketing strategy” of advertising which raises the profile of the Union in order to support and encourage recruitment by personal recommendation and individual initiative. At long last – in the next few months – it will be possible to join UNISON online.

After years of being told that the “organising approach” meant an exclusive focus on recruitment and dedicated training to get shop stewards out there to recruit, it is refreshing that we are getting back to a common sense approach which says that doing good trade union work – and making sure that members and potential members are aware of this – is the basis upon which we can build effective recruitment. Kate Ahrens, health service NEC member reported that the positive recruitment experience in East Midlands health was based upon the Region deliberately organising on the basis of large geographical health branches. Moz Greenshields from the East Midlands made the point that the Region also makes good use of its Regional pool money to support this work. Lessons for the Greater London Region are pretty clear.

The Head of the Membership Participation Unit introduced a report to the Committee dealing with UNISON's three projects funded through the Union Modernisation Fund. All of these are sensible attempts to use this limited Government support to achieve long term benefits for the Union. The first is to develop the role of Equality Reps. The second is to develop “virtual branches.” The third is to develop the participation of migrant workers.
I asked about the role of Equality Reps in relation to self-organisation and was assured that the self-organised groups have been and will be fully involved in that project, which is likely to lead to a Rule Amendment to next year's Conference.

The Committee then moved on to consider the survey of delegates to National Delegate Conference and the Scheme of Representation for next year's Conference. Next year registration of delegates for Conference (and submission of motions) will be possible online – and this should highlight any problems in the composition of delegations at an early stage.

As always there was a fairly lively debate about this scheme and several NEC members proposed ways in which the scheme could be a little more flexible for branches – in particular around the question of whether delegates should be permitted to count in more than one “fair representation” category (for example a young worker who is also low paid be part of a four delegate delegation and by their presence satisfy both the requirement that the branch send a low paid delegate and the requirement to send a young delegate).

I challenged the suggestion that such “doubling up” should not be permitted and also supported those who were arguing that the requirement to send a low paid delegate should be a requirement to send a low paid worker who could be either male or female. The broad thrust of comments from Regions were to call for some greater flexibility.

I felt that the new proposal that the branches of more than 2,000 - who have to send a low paid delegate – would not be permitted to satisfy that requirement by sending a low paid man – was overly restrictive. However my attempt to amend this was unsuccessful and the committee went on to agree a scheme which is essentially similar to the scheme as it applied last year.

Interestingly, it was reported that in most other Regions, branches appealing against decisions to disqualify delegates are generally having their appeals upheld. Branches electing Conference delegates need to consider how to apply the requirements of the Scheme of Representation in the particular circumstances of your branch.

The Committee received a presentation on current work by UNISON's Learning and Organising Services, including a diagram which illustrates training courses available to activists and which bears more than a passing resemblance to the London Underground map (!)

The Committee was updated on the introduction in January of branch and regional joint assessments (about which the committee had received a detailed written report at its July meeting) and also on the review of Service Groups (about which Frank Hont, North West Regional Secretary also gave a presentation to NEC members later in the day). The Project Board had received feedback from service groups on the proposals which had been considered in July.

The Local Government Service group favoured “option one” (the minimal change option), the Health Service group favoured “gradual” change rather than a “big bang” approach. Generally the smaller service groups (and the Community and Voluntary sector forum) were more sympathetic to “option three” (the abolition of Service Groups and the move to a sector based structure). The process of consultation is continuing – I argued that there was no reason to rush towards agreeing fundamental changes at next year's Conference.

Branches should be aware that there will be a process of consultation about our Service Group structures in which branches and Regions will be asked to express opinions in the near future. If any branches would like any assistance in organising meetings to discuss this review I will be happy to give any help that I can.

It was reported to the Committee that the Committee Chair had endorsed the new version of the Code of Good Branch Practice as “Chair's action” without awaiting a meeting of the Committee itself. I felt that this was inappropriate, particularly since not all of the changes had been discussed by the Committee or the NEC. However a majority of the Committee were happy – and voted that in future year's the annual revision of the Code should be carried out by the Committee Chair on our behalf.

The Committee also endorsed recommendations concerning transitional arrangements for the implementation of the new Rule D.3.5.8 which prohibits NEC members elected to represent a Service Group from also occupying any other seats on their Service Group Executive. It has been agreed that from 2011, SGE members who wish to seek election to the Service Group seat on the NEC will need to stand down from the SGE before they are eligible to be nominated to the NEC. I proposed an amendment to this recommendation without success. There is however time to reconsider this before the decision will take effect (and – of course – it won't matter if we abolish Service Groups in the mean time!) If any London branches are particularly concerned about this issue please get in touch.

Following the regular report on branches under Regional Supervision (none of which are in the Greater London Region at present) the Committee received a briefing on the campaign around Clause 18 of the Employment Bill, which has been amended in the House of Lords in such a way as to make it much harder for unions to expel fascists. Details of the postcard campaign which is being supported by UNISON are available online at http://www.unitedcampaign.org.uk/employmentbill.html.

The Chair reported that the Vice-Chair, on his behalf, had agreed an interpretation of the application of Schedule D to the Rule Book in cases covered by Appendix 2 to the Rule Book (involving allegations of harassment of staff by a member). This was the only “Chair's action” (other than that reported separately in relation to the Code of Good Branch Practice) and – in response to requests from members – I sought and received an assurance that no Chair's action had been taken in relation to any branch in Greater London.

Oi! What about the workers?

I should be writing up my report of yesterday's meeting of UNISON's NEC, but I haven't yet finished the report from the previous day's meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee – and am now off to a meeting of the Regional Council.

I will briefly comment that I was pleased that yesterday's meeting adopted a positive and progressive policy statement in response to the current financial crisis.

The “part nationalisation” of some of the largest financial institutions is not intended in any way to subject the “commanding heights of the economy” to any sort of democratic control – on the contrary the Government is just trying to prop up the financial system so that it can carry on as before.

UNISON is right to point out that if so many billions are available to support the financiers then there is a strong case to end the public sector pay freeze, and to “bail out” those who face fuel poverty and repossession. Even if they don't get their exorbitant bonuses, none of the bankers who have grown even richer on the back of dodgy lending will be worrying whether they can afford to put their heating on this winter!

In the absence of a mainstream political party of the left, it is up to the trade unions to express the interests of our members in this crisis – we should be meeting at branch level to discuss the NEC statement and how we take forward a campaign for the sensible demands which it sets out.

New Labour economics is over.

GMB Scotland, Recomend rejection of new offer

Statement form GMB Scotland

8th October 2008
26,000 GMB SCOTLAND MEMBERS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO BE BALLOTED OVER COSLA’s LATEST 3% PAY OFFER WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT IT

GMB representatives did not like the reintroduction of a second year and still want to see a single year deal. They also think 3% is too low.


GMB Scotland is recommending that its 26,000 members should reject the Local Government Employers’ latest offer in the current pay dispute. The latest Offer of 3% for 2008 and 2.5% for 2009 was made by the Employers’ at a meeting with the Trade Unions on Thursday, 2nd October 2008.

GMB Scotland delegates met yesterday (Tuesday, 7th October) in Glasgow to consider the offer. They decided that they would recommend to GMB’s members that the offer should be rejected by GMB Scotland members.

GMB Scotland will be balloting all members on the COSLA offer over the next four to five weeks.

Alex McLuckie, GMB Scotland’s Senior Organiser for Public Services said, “GMB shop stewards, representing 26,000 GMB members, considered this offer yesterday. They felt it did not go far enough and does not resolve the dispute for them. GMB representatives did not like the reintroduction of a second year and still want to see a single year deal.

They also believe that given the high levels of inflation that the 3% would need to increase to reflect the significant increase they are seeing in the cost of living”.

Confronting Racism at work

All this fuss about the Met reminds me that I spent a fair bit of time in my office the other day dealing – as I so often do – with racism. The pervasive nature of racism in the workplace means that it is present as an element of many of the circumstances with which union reps have to deal – and it is perceived to be present in many circumstances as well (and the two sets of circumstances overlap but are not coterminous).

Our Union rightly devotes great energy to the overt offensive racism of the BNP and I wholeheartedly support all attempts to drive them back into the sewers where they belong.

However, for many of our black members it is the everyday experience of institutional racism in the workplace which is the problem the Union needs to confront.

And it is tricky.

Way back I guess it was easier to see the problem. In Lambeth – where I work – the Council workforce in 1981 was 90% white. In the 1980s when believing in equality marked you out as part of the “loony left” a vigorous approach to equality locally changed the composition of the Council workforce so that it was about 50/50 black and white.

Back in the early 90s, when the gains of the 80s were first under attack, the employer used to get very angry when accused of institutional racism – but for the last ten years or so the employer has adopted a more sophisticated response of hand-wringing. They cannot ignore evidence that white workers do better than black workers in recruitment and promotion and that black workers are more likely than white workers to be on the receiving end of disciplinary action.

When told that they are institutionally racist many large organisations will now say “yes, I know, isn't it awful, what shall we do about it?”

They cannot deny the problem because research which they themselves commissioned back in the 90s comprehensively demonstrated the tenacity of racism in the workplace. A few years later one local authority spent a six figure sum on an inquiry which looked in considerable detail at a particular instance of workplace conflict which included elements of institutional racism.

Since I know a few fellow union activists read this blog I would welcome suggestions about how we try to expose and uproot this institutional racism. Back when UNISON activists could lodge tribunal complaints we tried to use individual litigation to confront this collective problem and I think we ran up against the limits of individual legal action pretty quickly. The Hackney branch once put a lot of energy into getting the former Commission for Racial Equality to investigate their lead employer and I am not sure that that really achieved sustained change either.

What is to be done?

Remember the Code!

UNISON has just reissued the Code of Good Branch Practice (the link is to a pdf version of the revised Code.

The Code is a significant document which, under UNISON’s Rules, the NEC is empowered to issue.

Of course the Code itself does not have the force of the Rules – it is more like guidelines…

It is to be reported to Tuesday’s meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee that the revised Code incorporates the following new elements;

4 week rule – decision by 2008 National Delegate Conference;
Exclusion or Expulsion from membership – D&O approved guidance;
Framework for Joint Branch Region Assessments – D&O decision;
Amendments to reflect changes to region’s organising staff structure “Meeting the Organising Challenge”;
Use of IT Equipment – guidance arising from recent investigations;
Funding branch delegates to conferences – D&O approved guidance;
Meeting members’ expenses arising from ”external” disciplinary hearings – clarification of responsibility;
Branch employed staff – clarifying employer obligations and referring to XpertHR scheme.

It is clearly important that the Code is kept up to date. However I am a little concerned that these changes have all been agreed by “Chair’s Action” a provision whereby urgent matters requiring the decision of a Committee may be taken by the Chair between meetings.

I may be overly sceptical and cynical (and only recently I was savaged by a dead sheep for the perceived injustice of some criticisms I had made) but I worry about lay leadership in an organisation where the routine updating of an important document is not put before the relevant lay Committee.

I shall report back on the answers I am given to the questions which this raises.

One Member One Seat?

Regular readers (Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak) will be looking forward to a report from Tuesday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee.

For those lucky few who are as fascinated as I am by trade union Rule Books, I’ll comment in advance on a discussion which is due to come up about the introduction of the new UNISON Rule D.3.5.8. which seeks to apply to UNISON's Service Groups a principle which you might call OMOS (One Member One Seat).

The new rule D 3.5.8 is as follows:
‘No member who holds a seat on the National Executive Council as a service group representative under Rule D.2.3 can hold any other seat on a service group executive at the same time’

The intention of this Rule amendment seems to be to ensure that no one holds two voting seats on a Service Group Executive (SGE) at the same time. Like any measure which restricts the rights of candidates to stand in elections it is open to the objection that it equally restricts the right of members to vote for whomsoever they want in an election.

However, Conference agreed this Rule. I have a deal of sympathy with trying to prevent individuals occupying more than one role at the same meeting. It can create confusion about accountability – but more importantly it limits the number of active members who are involved in the Union.

A few years ago, whilst a serving member of the NEC, I was prevailed upon to run for Regional Convenor. The Regional Council thought better of this idea, and I think it’s always worth learning from experience – I think on reflection that it was wrong to try to occupy both positions as an NEC member and Regional Convenor.

Since reaching this conclusion I have not sought election to the Regional Committee (noting apart from anything else that it is not always those with votes at a meeting who most influence its decisions!) There is a wealth of talent in our Union and plenty of people available to contest seats on the Regional Committee.

Although there is a difference between the position of Regional NEC members on their Regional Committee and Service Group members on their SGE – in that Regional members of the NEC don’t have a vote at the Regional Committee, it still limits participation in the Region if NEC members hold other positions as well on a Committee they are already entitled to attend.

Perhaps at next year’s Conference we should consider making the Rules on Regional NEC members consistent with those we have now adopted for Service Group members?

The D&O Committee this week will also need to decide how to bring the new Rules into effect – and what the implications should be for sitting members of an SGE who want to seek election to a Service Group seat on the NEC – should they be required to resign their seat on the SGE before seeking election to the NEC?

I don’t think so – but would welcome the views of interested UNISON members (particularly in the Greater London Region of course!)

Scots get half a loaf as pay round stutters to a halt

Half a loaf being – quite clearly – better than none, an offer of half a per cent is clearly better than no offer and scurrying off to arbitration (well more dawdling than scurrying!). So to that extent well done to the Scottish comrades, who have been offered a 3% increase this year (up from 2.5%) but only if they accept 2.5% next year.

Forgetting foolish faith in reopener clauses (which clearly do not work) any multi-year pay deal is a significant risk. Going into a recession I suppose it is likely that inflation will now come down, although whether it will fall fast enough to stop 2.5% in 2009 being a real terms pay cut (just as 3% in 2008 is) remains to be seen.

As far as UNISON members are concerned we do seem to be coming to the end of a pay round in which, whilst we may have defeated the straw man of the 2% pay policy, we have failed to protect the living standards of our members, whose pay rises are falling behind inflation.

I think that the 2% pay policy is pretty irrelevant since I understand that whereas in previous years some efforts were made to induce the local government employers to abide by it, there is no evidence of any such pressure this year. I do therefore hope that we won’t – at next week’s UNISON NEC – be invited to pat ourselves on the back for defeating a pay policy which the Government did nothing to pursue.

If we are honest we need to recognise that the current approach of the Union leadership is not delivering pay increases for our members.

This failure to protect living standards in the most unionised sectors of the economy threatens to reduce the union wage differential. It certainly does nothing to build our Union.

Instead of complacency and silence I hope to hear an honest assessment of the weaknesses of our approach next week, and a serious attempt to consider what and how we need to change.

This is an example on my part of what is known as “optimism of the will” and it is counterposed, I think, to the view of the majority of my NEC colleagues which – when it comes to making judgements about the conduct of our Union in relation to pay (or privatisation, or our work in the Labour Party) is best characterised as Panglossianism.

Obviously unofficial blogging about London Region UNISON

As regular readers at Mabledon Place (Sid and Doris Constitution) will be aware, I am diligent in not using UNISON resources for unofficial purposes, so clearly this evening's posts are being done unofficially.

We are now (at the London UNISON United Left) considering the problem of the lack of democracy in the Greater London Region of UNISON. Now that a majority of the Regional Committee consist of members who are prepared to go along with whatever the office wants, and has conceded control of the agenda for the Regional Council to a small and malleable group, we face the frustration of a Regional UNISON machine which does not deliver for our members.

The decline in support for industrial action from the office over recent years is one manifestation of the consequences of this stifling of lay control. The current Regional Committee majority is not producing any positive outcomes for UNISON members in Greater London.

Those who write the speeches for the supporters of that majority believe that national strike action is pointless, but have consistently failed to come up with any constructive ideas to defend our members' interests. With public spending cuts on the horizon we need a Union with ideas to promote the interests of our members.

UNITE members in the health service are about to consider strike action against a pay deal which was more or less "sold" to UNISON members. When ordinary members in the health service had a say they elected members of the Service Group Executive who stood on a platform of fighting for our members - just as members nationally have recently elected Karen Reissman to the NEC.

Branches sending delegates to our Regional Council need to consider whether it is adequate to elect a leadership which is happy to go along with the failure to fight over pay and whether this will be a leadership that can mobilise our members to combat the job cuts which are now to come.

One contributor to the current debate at the United Left meeting has called for "Democratic" control of the Region (I don't think he meant Obama...) whilst another wit has wondered whether UNISON should move in the direction of the hereditary principle for our senior officials.

UNISON in Greater London has many strengths in our activists and our branches - when you look at the excellent work that is done in many of our branches it is clear that we could achieve a great deal across the city. Whether we do or not will depend upon how branches vote at the Regional Council.

My battery is failing now so this exciting experiment in live blogging from the London Region UNISON United Left will draw to a natural close...

United Left disappointed in leadership shock!

In a new first for the internet I am live blogging from the London United Left meeting (that's the UNISON United Left I should add).

We are disappointed in the approach of the UNISON leadership to the national local government pay dispute.

The wilful inadequacy of UNISON's leadership when it comes to organising strike action is leading dangerously towards a legacy of cynicism amongst our members.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of despair from Mabledon Place has let down the largest group of our membership - and the largest bargaining group in the whole economy.

Many UNISON activists - well beyond the ranks of the "usual suspects" are disappointed and feel betrayed.

The discussion on pay at the London Regional Local Government Committee seems to have been an almost complete waste of time if the decision on going to arbitration was predetermined.

It is no shock that left wingers feel that the decision to go to arbitration is premature. However the important point is that disappointment with the leadership goes much further than us.

It appears that the decision from the Executive of the trade union side of the National Joint Council to recommend arbitration came even before the outcome of the "consultation" exercise.

The majority of the UNISON NEC are willing to support an approach in which national strike action is pretty much ruled out from the outset. This is contributing to a downward spiral in our members' living standards.

Those who favour declining living standards for public sector workers therefore know who to support...

Remembering Greg Tucker

Yesterday I was honoured to attend a memorial service for comrade Greg Tucker at Kennington Park. Greg was a leading RMT activist who was - until his unjustified expulsion - a leading member of the Labour Party in Lambeth.

More than one speaker commented that Greg would have wished to have seen this crisis of capitalism unfolding around us – and it is fitting that the bench, tree and flowers which commemorate him do so where they do.

Greg never gave up, whether as part of the experiment of 1980s municipal socialism or in his commitment to industrial struggle and building the working class movement – and on a busy day in a trade union branch office that’s an inspiration.

Regional Committee meeting

I don’t have a lot of time today, but having found an incisive analysis of current trends in public service management I had to blog a link to it. So have a look!

Today’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee was described by its Chair as a good meeting.

In a diverse and democratic trade union there may of course be room for other views.

I am afraid I missed the debate on pay but understand that delegates from the health service and local government service groups both expressed concern about our below inflation pay offers.

The Committee was advised that there will be a briefing in November for London branches on the new branch assessment process being introduced from January. Malcolm Campbell, representing the local government Committee, spoke up for branches who are concerned about this process, which could all too easily be seen as some sort of “appraisal” of branches by Regional Organisers.

That is not the intention nationally and we must ensure that it does not become the practice regionally.

I asked about arrangements in the Region for consultation on the more significant question of our future service group structures and was advised that this would be taking place soon.

The Committee had a lengthy debate in response to consultation on the proposal to increase the limit for the definition of “low pay” for reserved seats for low paid women workers. It was agreed to support the principle of increasing the limit in view of the difficulty which is being experienced in getting candidates for seats at the current rate.

We were told that the Regional Council officers, on behalf of the Region, had expressed support for the current scheme of representation for branches at National Delegate Conference. Malcolm Campbell once again took the lead in questioning why this had been done without any consultation with the branches who had been expressing concern.

Branches with a membership below 2,000 are not affected in any way by the restrictions upon branch representation (other than the requirement for proportionality as between men and women which is a very clear Rule Book requirement). It would be very interesting to know how many delegates from those branches were either low paid or young members. So I shall ask.

In discussion about the forthcoming Regional Council we were advised of the proposals for speakers at the meeting which had come from the Regional Council officers. Since one of these proposals was for a speaker on the http://www.wateratwork.org/ campaign I suggested we invite the UNISON NEC member elected by our members in the relevant service group.

Committee members noticed that the Regional Council officers had omitted to invite a speaker about public sector pay and when this addition was suggested the Regional Secretary felt that we should really await guidance from the NEC about how UNISON would be responding to the TUC decision (to support a Composite motion moved by UNISON).

In order to avoid any difficulty I suggested that we invite the mover of the Composite at the TUC, UNISON Deputy General Secretary, Keith Sonnet and this was agreed by the Committee.

NEC members could not give a full NEC report since there had been no NEC meeting, but I was able to remind the meeting about forthcoming consultation on the political funds and on UNISON democracy.

And that was about it really...

Although I did ask Labour Link Chair, Louise Couling how we could win the next General Election to which she said "vote Labour" (which I intend to, but I fear my vote alone may not be enough). Though Louise's witty comment was greeted with much hilarity I am not sure that telling people to vote Labour to avoid a Tory Government will work well next time.

I look forward to those who take this view stating it openly in internal UNISON elections and being honest about their politics in front our our members.

London follows Scotland

The London Regional Local Government Committee of UNISON voted on Monday to follow the example of our Scottish sisters and brothers in dispute over pay and call for further dates to be named for strike action in the pay dispute south of the border.

This decision mandates our delegates to the National Joint Council Committee – Chair David Eggmore and newly elected member Sonya Howard, who saw off a challenge from my fellow NEC member Irene Stacey and was elected by a margin of three to one by the delegates at the Committee meeting.

Whilst regular readers of posts on this topic (Sid and Doris striker) will appreciate that the decision to call for further strike action is a result which I welcome (and spoke and voted in favour of) readers will also appreciate that I am not "gung ho" for further strike action in the difficult circumstances which confront us. I accept that London was not one of the Regions in which support for the action which we have already taken was at its highest and therefore accept that we should listen to the views of colleagues from Regions in which the action was better supported with some humility.

However, I believe that the criticisms that were voiced of the "consultation exercise" at the meeting (echoing earlier comments here) were valid. A visitor to the Committee who should probably have been a delegate commented that, as a trained researcher, she knew that the results you got from consultation depended very much on the questions you asked. Full marks to the Islington branch who added a question about whether joint trade union action would be better than going it alone – a proposition which was accepted by over 80% of respondents!

In general however the consultation gave the impression of having been designed to discourage further action – this is a view which will quite reasonably be held by those activists who lack confidence in our national Union to prosecute this dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. However our active members who voted for and supported strike action need to receive accurate and timely information and to be invited to all relevant meetings – if you have details please share them!

I also believe that, in the new circumstances since the TUC, we have a real prospect of major united public service strike action within the next couple of months. Unless influential leaders of a large public service trade union actively seek to prevent this, members of PCS and the NUT will be striking together (in each case as part of continuing campaigns) in November. They may be joined by UCU members in Further Education and even possibly by UNITE members in health. Since the TUC Congress has called for Days of Action over public sector pay it would take a genius in avoiding implementing agreed decisions for anything to be done which did not involve declaring this strike day to be a TUC Day of Action.

These strikes should certainly also be joined, as best we can, by local government members of UNISON on both sides of Hadrian’s Wall.

There is no guarantee that we can achieve united action.

There is no guarantee that if we do so it will put sufficient pressure on the Government and/or employers to up the offer.

There is no guarantee of anything except that – if we do nothing we shall achieve nothing (as has been demonstrated on more past occasions than anyone would wish to remember). In which case the decline in the living standards of our members has been appreciated yet!

In an earlier post I floated the idea of TUC Top Trump Cards (which has attracted some favourable comments) – I would now like to suggest that we seek out a trade union Thesaurus.

If we had such a tome we would know that in most circumstances the phrase “unilateral reference to arbitration” means more or less the same as “surrender.” (And please note that I make this observation as someone who has recommended such a course of action in the past!)

There were major other items at the Regional Local Government Committee including – first – a series of criticisms of the approach of the Regional office to requests from branches for strike ballots. Activists feel that rather than feeling supported by paid officials at a criticial time they feel that the paid officials want them to give up, leave and be replaced.

This will not be happening - and the office needs to provide more effective support to branches forced to consider action.

If it's right to strike in Blackburn, West Lothian what about Blackburn, Lancashire?

Congratulations to our Scottish brothers and sisters for deciding upon further strike action in their local government pay dispute. This is in the context of the employers offering further talks but failing to make an improved offer – a course of action which the UNISON negotiator describes as “disingenuous”.

This is also of course precisely what the employers have done south of the border, following the resumption of talks after our strike action in July. Whilst negotiations have led to not just one but two joint statements, they have not produced any movement on the pay offer for 2008/09.

In assessing whether this means that UNISON’s local government membership in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should respond in the same way as our Scottish comrades to this impasse we have to continue to weigh up a number of factors.

On the one hand it is true that the Scottish strike action was based upon a better ballot result, and was more solidly supported than our July strike action. We cannot therefore just assume that because a particular course of action is right for Scotland we can assume it is right in England, Wales and Northern Ireland without thinking through the implications.

On the other hand, we may now have the opportunity to develop our strategy to win a better pay offer in the light of decisions taken and announced at the TUC.

The TUC is committed to coordinating public sector pay disputes. PCS are balloting for discontinuous strike action on the basis of plans for action over a three month period and the NUT are also balloting for discontinuous action. UCU members in Further Education will shortly be deciding whether to join this campaign which could possibly also see action by UNITE members in health.

In order to secure a better pay offer for our local government members we have to put pressure both on the Government (to provide resources to local government and to encourage the employers to settle) and on the employers themselves. I believe that unified public sector strike action on the widest possible basis could put pressure on both the Government and employers, and that our members could be persuaded to support action on this basis more solidly than they supported the action in July.

A key factor will be the attitude of UNISON’s leadership at every level. It is entirely within the hands of our Union that the TUC should decide to declare that the day on which PCS and the NUT take national strike action together should be a TUC Day of Action as mandated by Congress. On this basis an argument could more readily be won with other public service workers in dispute over pay to join such action.

We know that this is a weakened Government susceptible to political pressure – and that (from a far less weak position) the Government did make considerable concessions on public service pensions when confronted by a united movement. It is reasonable to conclude that similar pressure could produce concessions on public service pay and therefore to expect that a positive leadership for union members would consist of arguing for the need for such action.

Is there an alternative to further strike action if we want an improved pay offer? Negotiators on both sides of the dispute are obviously aware of the possibility of arbitration.

The employers’ side, in their submission to the Local Government Pay Commission back in 2003 argued that there is "no need for national strikes in local government because both parties have unilateral access to binding arbitration".

When, however, shortly after that submission was made, the trade union side tried to use this clause to settle the outstanding London Weighting dispute we found how easy it was for the employers’ side to sabotage it by refusing to cooperate with an arbitrator if one were appointed.

Since an arbitrator would give weight to the budgetary pressures on local authorities and to Government pay policy as much as to the standard of living of our members, even if the employers agreed to arbitration there is no reason to suppose that this would produce a significant improvement on 2.45%.

To propose a reference to arbitration at this stage of the dispute would be to give up on our claim and to write off the effort thus far expended in the dispute.

I think that this would be an error and that, for all the difficulties which confront us, our best course of action is without doubt to make a renewed effort to secure support for solid strike action in conjunction with as many other public servants as possible.

It is unfortunate that the basis for recent consultation with members excluded any serious attempt to engage members in a debate about the strategy which we are adopting over pay – this means that the results of such consultation are worthless as evidence to guide decisionmakers.

I hope that next week’s meeting of the UNISON National Joint Council Committee will give our activists the chance to develop and implement a strategy to secure an improved pay offer through unity with other public service workers.

UNISON GMB merger?

Last night UNISON and the GMB held a joint reception.

Our members in local government might think that joint industrial action against real terms pay cuts would be of more value - GMB members in the health service might possibly think likewise. For now though we can coordinate free food and drink.

There was much jollity about the prospect at some stage of a UNISON-GMB merger. For the moment I think that this has as much to do with the GMB's previous flirtation with UNITE as it does with the potential industrial logic of such a merger in the public services.

Activists in both unions need to consider how we improve joint working at a rank and file level. Should merger seriously appear on our agenda we need to be vigilant in defence of lay member democracy. While we are at it we need the same joint working with brothers and sisters in UNITE.

If we are going down the road of "super unions" then a merger between UNITE, UNISON and the GMB makes just as much sense as a UNISON-GMB merger.

There is a future for small and specialist unions which organise particular industries, but is there a future for what we have now in terms of three large general unions, competing for members in some areas and generally failing to coordinate effectively. I don't know.

Activists need to think about this.

Right to work - not workfare

TUC Congress is nearing the end of our business, debating Motion 23 from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which calls for asylum seekers to have the right to work whilst their application for asylum is considered.

This restoration of rights to asylum seekers has to be right and Congress will clearly pass the motion overwhelmingly. It is ironic that asylum seekers are refused the right to work whilst benefit claimants are set to be required to work in order to receive their benefits!

Taken together the motions passed during the week amount to a pretty long wish list of the things the trade union movement wants from the Government.

The question of how we obtain greater political influence for these progressive policies is increasingly acute.

Last year's Congress was dominated by misplaced hope and faith in the then new Prime Minister. This year's Congress is dominated by a miserable poverty of ideas up on the top table about how to make political progress.

Mark Serwotka is now moving Emergency Motion One sounding alarm bells about the Government's appalling welfare reform plans.

I don't know how many of the trade union group of MPs will have the courage and principle to oppose these plans for workfare, but I do know that those MPs associated with the Labour Representation Committee will do so.

The leadership of the big unions kept their distance from the LRC when it was established for fear of losing influence by associating themselves with the hard left.

These unions have consistently failed to demonstrate that they thereby have such influence in respect of anything that matters to our members.

We have to face the reality that there are only a small number of MPs who are on our side.

It is time for a different approach, working with our few real friends in Parliament.

Health and Safety debate at the TUC

Congress has agreed Composite 21 which calls for a new approach from the Health and Safety Executive, moving away from self-regulation and emphasising inspection and enforcement.

Also, and very sensibly, the composite calls for a duty on employers to provide risk assessments to union representatives. It is implicit in other duties upon employers that they should do this, but the lack of clarity in the law is a major obstacle to promoting health and safety in the workplace.

We are now debating the rather odd Composite 22 which calls for us to mark Workers Memorial Day (in April) by having a public holiday in October. Since this does not seem to make too much sense I think I shall go and get a coffee...

Trade Union Coordinating Group

Rather than blog a full report myself from Tuesday evening's launch of the Trade Union Coordinating Group I shall cheat and blog a link to a report from UNITE blogger Gill George.

The new group is an interesting and important development (and one which Derek Simpson comprehensively misunderstood at the Morning Star fringe meeting on Tuesday lunchtime).

The group is, as far as I can see, a sensible attempt to maximise the political impact of the work of some of the best campaigning unions. It will appeal to those who look for an alternative to the Labour Party as a vehicle for our aspirations, but it will of necessity work primarily if not exclusively with Labour Parliamentarians.

The unions coming together to coordinate their lobbying have different policies and traditions, and their General Secretaries have different personal opinions as they made clear at the fringe.

What they have in common is an honest recognition of the limited effectiveness of the political campaigning of the trade unions (exemplified by the supine trade union group of MPs) and a genuine desire to see our movement fighting for its policies.

To the extent that I have heard anyone from the leadership of the movement trying to outline what their approach is and how to distinguish it from the attempt of the left-led unions to establish a trade union voice in Parliament it was in the barely coherent contribution from Derek Simpson at the Morning Star fringe meeting, at which he expressed the hope that there would be a fight to reclaim the Labour Party. (I was left wondering whether he might be able to persuade one of the joint General Secretaries of our largest union to do something about this).

The Trade Union Coordinating Group, convened by John McDonnell is a far more persuasive attempt at political influence for our class and those of us who are genuinely serious about a fight for socialist politics in the Labour Party should welcome this attempt to politicise trade unionism.

I should imagine that somewhere deep in the bowels of Mabledon Place someone is already trying to work out how to rule out of order any discussion of this development at UNISON's Conference next year...

Hurrah for Bob Crow

Perhaps the only thing that can wake up the TUC Congress on its last morning is a speech from RMT General Secretary Bob Crow, disappointingly not re-elected to the General Council this week.

Congress has just unanimously agreed Composite 3, expressing our opposition to recent judgements of the European Court of Justice which seriously restrict the ability of trade unions to take action to defend our members interests.

Motion 7, which Bob Crow is now moving, did not form part of the Composite and the TUC General Council are supporting it whilst expressing reservations. "Support with reservations" is the TUC equivalent of UNISON's "support with qualifications" and essentially means; "you can vote for this but we won't do anything about it."

I wait with interest to hear Brendan Barber express the reservations, which I assume relate to the fact that whereas Composite 3 called for a mass lobby of Euro MPs, Motion 7 calls for a day of action and demonstration.

Yesterday's international debates were good - particularly the strong support for the Cuban people and Cuban revolution. It is hardly a novel or original observation to note that the TUC is all in favour of radicalism as long as it is thousands of miles away or hundreds of years in the past.

Brendan Barber is now explaining the General Council's reservations. First, they don't want to give unconditional support for the United Campaign against the anti-union laws as not all TUC affiliates support the campaign. Secondly, they don't want to commit themselves to a demonstration and lobby of Parliament. Thirdly the General Council does not wish to commit the TUC to opposition to the Lisbon Treaty on the basis of this motion.

Bob Crow is rising to reply. Congress has passed the motion unanimously but on the basis that we have been told that it won't be implemented. You have to love the TUC...

Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as possible

As my laptop batteries are recharging I will have to report on this afternoon's TUC debates later.
The debates on international issues and transport issues have seen some positive contributions.
More later

Climate Change

Congress has just unanimously agreed Composite 9 on Climate Change.

We're against it (climate change that is - not the composite motion).

Essentially we are asking for trade union involvement in the development of a socially just strategy for transition to a low carbon economy, backed up by a statutory role for trade union environmental representatives.

This is very worthy.

However there is another climate that needs to change and that is the climate of complacency at the top of our movement.

The climate in too many workplaces is hostile to trade unions and workers' rights - the next General Election seems unlikely to make it any better (to say the least!)

Matt Wrack of the FBU is currently moving Motion 35 addressing the challenges for public servants from the flooding we have seen in recent years. Matt was also a speaker last night at the launch of the Trade Union Coordinating Group.

That Group seems to be a valid attempt to break from the complacent consensus and to face up honestly to the political weakness and isolation of our union movement (and then to do something about it).

I'll blog a considered report of last night's fringe meeting at which the Group was launched when I get a chance.

Organising?

Most unfortunately I had to pop out to the toilet just ahead of Harriet Harman's address to Congress and - as I felt it would have been rude to walk back in while she was speaking - I waited until Tony Woodley was introducing a DVD on organising.

We spend far too much time listening to Ministers from a hostile Government and it makes more sense to spend our time considering whether ten years of the organising agenda has really contributed to halting the decline in union membership.

The work that is done as a result of the focus on organising is clearly valuable - and there is some evidence from cross-sectional data within UNISON that those branches who have adopted elements of the "organising approach" are performing better when it comes to recruiting and retaining members.

However, at the level of the membership of the Union as a whole, time series data suggests that major industrial disputes are the factor which influences variations in membership growth - the evidence that it is the "organising approach" which has halted the decline in union membership is equivocal at best.

The CWU are now moving Composite 5 on young members, calling very sensibly for learning about trade unionism in schools - the composite is to be seconded by the Professional Footballers' Association, whose members are probably amongst the most familiar trade unionists to most children. (They also of course have a fair few strikers in their membership).

Perhaps we should have the equivalent of football cards for the TUC, so the young people became familiar with General Council members by collecting and swapping cards with their images on. They could be TUC "Top Trump" cards with points for membership size, ability to express a coherent argument etc.

Or maybe not...

Equality debate at the TUC

The debate on Composite Motion 6 on the Equality Bill is, thus far, non-controversial but certainly not unimportant.

Of particular significance to UNISON is a clause drawing upon UNISON's amendment to the original motion, which calls for the gender pay gap to be addressed through adequate public sector funding and changed legal processes.

This addresses the hidden crisis which threatens the finances, officers and activists of many unions, and of UNISON in particular. In the absence of adequate funding to fill the gender pay gap the application of factor based job evaluation to achieve equal pay is leading to many losers.

The delays which resulted in large part from anticipation of this outcome have produced rising pressure for progress from which No Win No Fee solicitors are now gaining significantly, litigating against both employers and unions.

For understandable reasons, given the scale and nature of the legal action, this vital question is not one which has a high profile at events such as this Congress.

However we have been asking for funding to fill the gender pay gap for several years - and two years ago I heard Gordon Brown (then Chancellor) tell Congress that something would be done.

The question we ought to be asking is what if anything we are getting from the Government to help us with this crisis...

a wet Wednesday at the TUC

This morning has started with Dianne Hayter addressing Congress on behalf of the Labour Party.

I thought for a moment she was going to go into a stand up routine when she praised the effectiveness of the current Labour Party NEC, but it turns out that instead she is hoping to lull Congress back to sleep.

She is reminding us of how bad things were under the Tories. I am sure this speech could have been given at every one of the last ten Congresses. Why not just show it to us as a video?

In common with almost every other delegate in the hall my mind is wandering.

I am remembering what I heard yesterday about the strange omission from the public services debate of a speaker from UNITE, whom it had agreed should have been called, but whom the TUC President did not call.

If I suggest that the speaker in question was a noted trade union blogger perhaps assiduous readers can guess who it was who was not called and speculate as to whether this was just an innocent cock up...

Looking up I see that Dianne Hayter is still speaking. That was ten minutes in which nothing at all was said.

We are now at least moving on to a debate - on the Equality Bill.

Foot health...

The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists are calling for a campaign to increase foot health screening in schools.

Discussion of foot health has got some delegates thinking about how Bob Crow was kicked off the General Council last year.

Those election results should be announced shortly.

I'll cross my fingers that the RMT get back on the General Council.

But I won't cross my toes because Mary Turner from the GMB says that foot health is very important...

Alistair Darling's speech

He has started well by congratulating the TUC on the work of the Commission on Vulnerable Workers.

He says the Government want to do more to enforce regulations.

But now it starts.

Times are tough.

We must maintain stability.

Our purpose as a Government is fairness (honestly??)

A stable economy is a means to this end...

The global economy is in trouble - he refers to the nationalisation of Northern Rock and more recently of the US financial institutions.

The credit crunch and the surge in food and fuel prices are affecting the whole world.

This is driven by growing demand from the growth in the economies of China, India and Brazil.

Inflation is up and growth is down across the world.

Times are tough.

He told us times are tough over and over again.

He justified his pay policy - again in answer to questions - on the basis that conceding more generous increases would lead to a wage-price inflationary spiral "as we have seen in the past."

This is nonsense.

The real reason for not offering more money to public sector workers is because the Government don't think that is a priority for the use of resources.

The local government employers aren't offering our members less than half the rate of inflation for any reason other than that the Government is not providing the sort of sustained funding that could provide proper pay.

The settlement of current pay disputes with offers around the current RPI would not drive up prices since the workers concerned are not producing goods which are sold on a market.

The Government would have to fund the increases either by raising taxes (or perhaps just collecting some of the tax which is dodged by corporations and wealthy individuals) - or by borrowing.

Borrowing to put money into the purses and wallets of predominantly low paid workers with a high marginal propensity to consume (i.e. spend the money in the economy) would have a reflationary impact and would be good for the economy.

On the key question confronting UNISON at the moment - our members' pay - this Chancellor has just offered us precisely nothing - and on the basis of a dishonest and misleading argument.

So that was Alistair Darling. I have heard him described as boring - and as a bank manager. His tone and body language answering questions are more like an irritated teacher dealing with toublesome children.

That was a waste of the time of hundreds of union activists.

TUC debates vulnerable workers

The TUC Congress has just formally adopted the report of the Commission on Vulnerable Workers.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling is sat on the platform listening to the debate on Composite 1 on Vulnerable Workers which makes modest demands to address the super-exploitation of workers such as agency and migrant workers.

Well, I hope he is listening...

USDAW moving the motion and Equity are speaking from the experience of workers who face particular exploitation. UNISON's Bev Miller is rising to support the Composite.

There are vulnerable and exploited workers across all sectors.

The public sector makes massive use of agency workers who are denied sick pay and employment rights.

You would think that Alistair Darling could empathise with workers on short term contracts with limited security and few prospects for advancement...

Jack Dromey from UNITE concludes the debate with a stirring speech. He wants to challenge the Government to act in line with the recommendations of the Commission.

Perhaps he could suggest to the Labour Party Treasurer that he points out to the Governing party that they need union money now more than ever?

Higher Education workers to get 5% pay rise

Here is the news from the BBC! Our members in HE stand to get 5% as a result of a three year deal in which the final year was 2.5% or the RPI.

As has just been pointed out to me by one of the lucky recipients of this generosity here at the TUC though a 5% pay rise when prices are rising by 5% is really just standing still.

It only looks generous by comparison with the real terms pay cuts the rest of us are being offered. Tomorrow's meeting of the Executive of the trade union side of the NJC for local government workers could set itself the target of matching the pay offer in HE, but we'll also need a strategy to secure that improvement.

Defending the indefensible?

Prospect are currently moving Motion 39 at the TUC on Defence Expenditure which UNISON will be opposing.

I agree with UNISON's policy on this motion.

We ought not - as a trade union movement - to be campaigning for "adequate resources for defence"."

"Defence" is a misnomer for expenditure on a variety of ways to kill other human beings.

Chris Baugh of PCS is seconding the motion and making valid points about the detrimental impact of privatisation on workers in the defence sector.

However, surely we should be arguing for arms conversion projects.

I don't care that the UK Defence capability is over stretched. I think we should stop sending our troops abroad. I think we should leave NATO and stop pretending to be an imperial power.

Mike Kirby, UNISON's Scottish Regional Convenor is expressing our opposition to the motion with particular emphasis on our opposition to nuclear weapons.

It is disappointing that the trade union movement is adopting such a narrow focus on the immediate interests of workers in the defence sector rather than raising our eyes to look for a better future for those workers carrying out socially useful work.

UNISON was one of only a handful of unions who opposed the motion.

Local Government Pay - now what?

If I were trying to settle this year's NJC pay dispute affecting hundreds of thousands of our members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland I think it is fair to say I wouldn't start from here.

Mixed feelings in the union were reflected in a narrow ballot result and patchy support for action. The subsequent decision to defer further action pending talks which have produced nothing more than some carefully worded joint statements which say nothing but do so elegantly has led to a loss of what little momentum we had.

The employers are not under sufficient pressure to make an improved offer at this point in time. We therefore have to identify steps which we can now take to put some pressure on our employers.

There are two seemingly impossible tasks which we have to grapple with. First we have to force the Government to provide additional funding to local authorities. Secondly we have to secure some of that additional funding for our members as an increased pay offer.

Since we have neither trade union unity nor any useful political influence with this disgraceful Government with which to secure these objectives these are incredibly difficult tasks.

However, with price rises skyrocketing it is equally impossible for our lower paid members to continue to make ends meet without a significantly improved pay offer.

After yesterday's TUC debate it is clear that there will be major public sector strike action, involving PCS, the NUT and possibly UCU members in Further Education and that this will take place from November onwards.

The General Council should set the date for the first of the TUC Days of Action to coincide with the commencement of this strike action - and we should aim for further local government strike action as part of this campaign.

The position adopted by the Lambeth branch about how to take the pay campaign forward offers us some challenging objectives - but unless we simply want to swallow a 2.45% pay rise (less than half the rate of inflation!) it seems to me that we need now to be fighting for further strike action.

A little update - I have been handed (at the TUC) a copy of "Workers" the occasionally entertaining journal of the impressively titled "Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)" and the comrades have this to say;

"Industrial action is not delivered by weasel words put through a blog site or painted on the side of Lambeth Town Hall or any other town hall in the hours of darkness"

Unfortunately the anonymous comrades don't go on to offer any constructive ideas about what we should do to secure better pay for our members - they must be too busy at their day jobs as union full-timers...

Tuesday at the TUC - guest speaker

I am listening to the guest speaker from the AFL-CIO, Arlene Holt Baker, who is talking up Obama in her address to the TUC Congress.

I am afraid I am not at all inspired or even very interested to hear about the work the AFL-CIO will be doing to get the vote out for the Democrats.

One quarter of delegates at the Democratic Convention were from union households.

Which means that the other three quarters were not.

The US trade unions are in an even weaker position politically than we are. We have at least the memory of a trade union based political party.

We however need massively to raise our game as a movement if we want political influence such as we currently do not have.

Later today John McDonnell is chairing a meeting called by the RMT, NUJ, PCS and FBU to launch a Trade Union Co-ordinating Group to provide a voice for trade unions in Parliament.

Since the current trade union group of MPs is worthless, and the Parliamentary work of the trade unions deeply unimpressive, this initiative is timely.

I'l report here later on how it goes.

LRC Fringe at the TUC

I am one of between 40 and 50 people listening to Pete Keenlyside of the CWU opening the Labour Representation Committee fringe meeting at the TUC. Pete argues that we have to start from where we are by persuading the trade unions to fight for union policies within the Labour Party.

We cannot know whether this fight will succeed and if the unions were blocked by the right-wing there would be a case for a new workers party, but right now we have to argue for socialist policies in the unions and take those into the Labour Party.

I agree - and will blog updates about the next speakers...

Janice Godrich is now speaking (in a personal capacity). Janice has different views but welcomes the debate which needs to take place.

She says that we have to start with the question of whether the Labour Party is a vehicle for our politics. As President of a Union most of whose members are employed by the Labour Government she doesn't think it is - and makes a sound job of itemising the many reactionary policies and practices of this Government.

Unions are funding a Party which is attacking our members.

She says that it is well-intentioned to try to fight for our policies within the Labour Party but she disagrees. Janice points out that PCS can campaign for their policies - the problem in other unions is the leadership, but that is a separate question from the question of political representation.

Is it though?

Janice concludes that there cannot be a fight within the Labour Party and that there needs now to be a new workers party.

Mick Shaw has now introduced John McDonnell to address the meeting.

John says we must not be over emotional in this debate.

We have to consider ourselves as socialists rather than being wedded to a particular organisational form.

We have to ask - is there room for democratic debate within the Labour Party so that we can advance socialist policies? There is now very limited room for this.

It was the General Secretaries of the unions who accepted the closing down of Labour Party Conference - and who have accepted the welfare reforms at Warwick without getting anything back in terms of trade union freedom.

We also have to ask - do working class people still look to the Labour Party? John says we shall see - he expects the next election to be more 1931 than 1979.

Then we have to ask - particularly given the First Past the Post system - is another option viable? John says he doesn't know what the PLP will look like after the next election.

We need to find an organisational form for cooperation. Where we can use the Labour Party as a vehicle we should do so. We may also need to look at single issue campaigns, industrial struggles etc.

We intend the LRC to be such an organisational form, to draw people together. John is now also promoting the Trade Union Coordinating Group. We need organisational forms to facilitate common action to deal with the urgent issues of the moment.

My battery is giving up now so I shall go and recharge somewhere.

Card vote fiasco...

Members of the UK's largest trade union may wonder why UNITE abstained on the POA amendment to the public sector pay composite (which sought unsuccessfully to add the word "strike" into the phrase "days of action").

UNITE's delegation had voted overwhelmingly for the amendment on the show of hands, but their voting card could not be found. The GMB backed the POA amendment as did several other unions - which contradicted what the UNISON delegation had been told yesterday when we were persuaded not to back the amendment on the grounds - in part - that no one else was.

Still, at least UNISON's President didn't mislay the voting card...

Time for Unity

The TUC has just agreed, overwhelmingly, a strongly worded composite on Public Sector pay which clearly calls for united strike action, albeit Brendan Barber's contribution showed characteristic clarity about the obstacles to unity.

For local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland this development offers us the opportunity to win an argument with our members for further action to secure an improved pay offer.

I hope to learn more here at the TUC about the plans for action being made by other unions - we need to publicise today's important decision to our members. The Government have declared war on public sector workers and, now that we have agreed to unite and fight back it is up to rank and file activists to give effect to this decision.

TUC Delegation meeting

We have started the meeting with a discussion about Motion 5 from the POA.

The position of the Policy Committee is to oppose this motion which calls for a series of General Strikes against the anti-union laws.

It is difficult to see that this could readily be achieved. However both myself and Glenn Kelly argued that we should put up a speaker to express support and solidarity for the POA. This was not agreed as the Chair of Policy said that the POA were in no doubt about how UNISON supported them.

The only other argument was about a POA amendment to the good Composite 15 on public sector pay which sought to add the word "strike" to a call for days of action.

I queried the grounds on which we were opposing this amendment, as the Chair of Policy said that it would be "illegal" for the General Council of the TUC to call for strike action. This reason is simply wrong since the General Council clearly could call for a strike, though affiliated unions would be acting unlawfully in responding to that call if they did not do so in line with legal requirements.

The Chair of Policy told the meeting that all the other Unions involved in the composite had already agreed to oppose the POA amendment.

The meeting has taken all of half an hour.

Intriguingly we are having a joint reception between UNISON and the GMB. It'll be joint industrial action next...

TUC time

It’s all here.

The Final Agenda for the TUC Congress 2008.

The Annual Report of the General Council of the TUC.

Details of what most delegates will be doing at the TUC next week.

(One of those links should be viewed in this light.)

But as we already know, one thing will be missing this year.

I look forward to seeing auld acquaintance (and new) at Congress.