After the Employment Appeals Tribunal decisions - what next?

I have blogged before about UNISON’s decision to appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal against rulings against the Union in cases brought against it by Tony Staunton and Yunus Bakhsh.

The appeals are listed to be heard tomorrow – Monday 9 February.

The decision to lodge these appeals, originally taken by the Presidential Team, was endorsed by the Development and Organisation Committee, of which I am a member. Although I still believe the decision to appeal was wrong (and will hold that belief regardless of the outcome in the tribunal) I am not blogging to repeat arguments made elsewhere.

I am however thinking ahead about how we, as a Union, may respond to EAT decisions in these cases.

In a nutshell, the point the Union lost in the Bakhsh case concerned the Union’s right to suspend a member from office without first bringing charges against the member. If the EAT finds in UNISON’s favour in this case, the National Executive Council(NEC) (meaning in effect the Chair of the relevant NEC Committee) will have the power to suspend a UNISON member from holding office although they face no charges. Although the suspension is carried out in the name of the NEC, the NEC as a whole does not receive details of the reasons for the suspension, other than a brief written summary on which individual NEC members can ask written questions but which cannot be debated or discussed.

In another nutshell, the point the Union lost in the Staunton case concerned the Union’s right to ban someone who had been suspended from holding office from being a candidate in an internal Union election. If the EAT finds in UNISON’s favour in this case the Union will be able to advise the returning officer that any candidates nominated in (for example) the current elections to the NEC who are suspended from holding office are ineligible to be candidates. Nominations close on Friday 13th and there is no provision of the election procedures to reopen nominations should a candidate be ruled out in this way.

Therefore, if UNISON wins both cases, it would be possible for a candidate for election to be suspended from holding office (even though they faced no charges) and therefore to be disqualified as a candidate although they had been found guilty of no offence. In practice the decision could be taken by one NEC member on the recommendation of one officer. There would be nothing anyone could do about this (within the Union) even if the suspension were later lifted and all charges dropped (or dismissed at a subsequent hearing) as the election would by then have taken place.

Whether or not you agree with the Certification Officer about these two cases it is not difficult to agree with the view expressed in the Bakhsh decision that;

“A discretionary power to suspend a member from an office to which he or she has been elected is a very significant matter”.

It is also hard to argue against the following statement drawn from the decision in the Staunton case;

“the right of a union member to stand for election is an important right of membership, as in any democratic organisation, and should not be taken away unless the members have so decided in a clearly expressed rule to that effect.”

Were the Union to be successful in both these cases a heavy burden would be placed upon the shoulders of those charged with exercising the discretion of the NEC under Rule C.7.4. No one in UNISON, I am sure, wants to see the use of administrative means to stifle political dissent.

How then are we to protect UNISON from the perception that the power of suspension could be used for political advantage in order to disqualify candidates who might succeed in being elected to the NEC?

What safeguards exist?

Do our existing procedures, in which the NEC does not receive full information about such decisions taken in its name, provide sufficient protection?

I don't think I am the only UNISON member worried about the answers to these questions.

Update on Monday evening - the EAT have reserved judgement.

Open letter to the General Secretary

The following letter was sent yesterday to UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis by several members of UNISON's NEC;

Dear Dave,

The UNISON Northern Region website had a news report dated 29 January 2009 concerning the investigation into racist activity on a social networking website by a former UNISON member, who has resigned from UNISON.

This former member was one of those whose complaints led to the suspension of leading black UNISON activist Yunus Bakhsh, whose complaint that his suspension may have been motivated by racism was dismissed by UNISON.

Information has now come to light which suggests that supporters of the far-right in the North-East were involved in promoting and encouraging complaints against Yunus, leading to his suspension from UNISON and by the employer and to his dismissal from his job.

UNISON is rightly proud of our opposition to racism in general and our opposition to the far right in particular.

It is not acceptable that UNISON should devote our members' money to an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in defence of a suspension which we now know was tainted by racism.

The exceptional circumstances of this case require a thoroughly independent and impartial investigation. UNISON members, trade unionists and anti-racists will expect nothing less of us.

Kate Ahrens, NEC; Roger Bannister, NEC; Bernadette Gallagher, NEC; Helen Jenner, NEC; Glenn Kelly, NEC; Diana Leach, NEC; Emma MacBeth, NEC; John McDermott, NEC; Karen Reissmann, NEC; Jon Rogers, NEC; Jessie Russel, NEC; Mike Tucker, NEC

Regional AGM postponed

Though this news is not yet on the UNISON Greater London Regional website, the following message is circulating from the Regional Secretary;

"Unfortunately I must advise you that the Greater London Region Council AGM and other service group AGMs, scheduled for Wednesday 4 February 2009, have had to be postponed.

This arises due to the severe weather conditions that have developed, resulting in continued Met Office severe weather warnings, Transport for London advice about passengers’ safety, delegates facing difficulties with childcare due to school closures and mounting pressure on delegates from Health and Utilities Branches over time off in these conditions.

A number of branches have advised today that delegates are anticipating these difficulties will continue into Wednesday and will therefore be unable to attend.

It is not possible to guarantee the proper functioning or quoracy of these AGMs in these circumstances, and therefore it is with reluctance that they are postponed in the interests of safety of delegates and the democratic participation of Branches.

I would be grateful if you would advise your delegates as a matter of urgency.

Staff are already working on securing room bookings for rescheduled meetings as soon as is practicable, and it is hoped information can be circulated as soon as possible once the Regional Office has fully reopened."

This is not something about which there was any consultation with the Regional Committee. I note that the message does not say that this was a decision of the Regional Convenor.

Whereas when football matches are postponed through bad weather the pools panel come up with notional results, the UNISON Regional AGM will need to be reconvened so that delegates can elect the Regional lay leadership.

The Regional Rule Book indicates that delegates are entitled to a minimum of seven working days notice of the meeting date (which is in any case common sense if delegates are to negotiate time off work).

If we are to avoid half term (the week of 16 February) and also want to meet before the deadline for motions to National Delegate Conference (noon on Tuesday 24 February) it will be fairly tricky.

Whether Wednesday's forecast sleet necessitated this unprecedented step, it is done now. Branches will need to be alert to the possibility of having to substitute delegates for a new date.

Update on Tuesday morning – the news is now online officially.

British jobs for British workers?

The current wave of walkouts demonstrates not xenophobia but an understanding of the consequences for working people of an unregulated labour market during a recession. I'm not trying here to compete with detailed reporting of what is taking place. However I do think all trade union activists need to think through what needs to be done.

This is not really about British jobs for British workers, but there is a danger that this will be how the action will come to be seen, including by those taking it.

Gordon Brown's unhappy slogan "British jobs for British people" does increase the risk that the racist right will try to take some advantage of the walkouts. A better slogan would be "British jobs on British terms and conditions" or - which we really want - "all jobs on good terms and conditions."

The subcontracting of work globally which, underpinned by recent European legal judgments, has helped to trigger the walkouts is but one manifestation of the way in which capital reorganises itself to maximise profit and exploit labour. The workers at the Lindsey oil refinery and those supporting them elsewhere are facing a problem which is not at all unfamiliar to UNISON members.

Yesterday I was with a group of low paid social care workers recently transferred from one employer to another to do work which years ago would have been done by directly employed local authority employees on nationally agreed rates of pay. Their work isn't like a construction project where an entire new workforce can be brought in, but they perceive their new employer cutting their hours and treating them badly whilst bringing in staff from another agency to do their work.

In the defensive struggles to which this type of offensive action by employers' gives rise there is always a risk of a "them and us" mentality within the workforce, and the responsibility of the Union is to lead action away from that dead end and towards the placing of demands on the employers (and their Government).

Our problem isn't with agency workers undercutting rates of pay or with workers brought in from overseas, it is with employers seeking to undercut rates of pay and failing to honour proper terms and conditions. Ultimately it is our job to organise all these workers into a global union movement, but it is also our job to seek to use the collective strength of each group of workers to achieve some joint regulation of the employment relationship and to constrain the ability of management to act unilaterally.

The challenge to the trade union movement is to lead the anger that is being expressed around the country at present in an effective struggle to wring concessions from this anti working class Government. The left badly needs a focus for such campaigning and we can't wait much longer for the much anticipated "Peoples Charter".

Update - in the mean time can anyone shed any light on the bona fides of this website?

Term Limits in trade unions?

The agenda for next week's Greater London Regional Council AGM includes an interesting proposal to limit NEC members to three terms of office.

On the face of it this looks like a good idea to increase member participation - but it is not at all that simple.

UNISON is a lay member-led union by Rule and that means that the people we elect need to be in a position to control and direct the work of senior full-time officials (who are of course appointed on a permanent basis).

Who would benefit from term limits on the NEC? It would not be our members.

Stop the Mail sale

It's good news that there is growing Parliamentary opposition to the proposed part-privatisation of Royal Mail.

The trade union movement as a whole needs to take this campaign on and pile on the pressure on the Government Ministers who can stop this lunacy.

With the capitialist economy in crisis and popular opposition to Royal Mail privatisation obvious, now is the very last time for a Labour Government to be embarking upon such a stupid policy.

Lords-a-Leaping

Well, I don't know if it's a criminal matter or just a breach of a Code of Practice, but when it comes to members of the House of Lords allegedly offering to lobby for cash payments, all I can say is that I won't be voting for them in the next election!

Review of UNISON structures

I have written to all UNISON branches in Greater London ahead of my report from the meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee on 22 January because there is one particular matter upon which I need urgent advice from London branches.

This concerns the document on “Bargaining Structures in UNISON: Proposals for the Future.”

This report of the work which has been done on the Service Group structures is, in my opinion, seriously deficient. The NEC Development and Organisation Committee will meet on 10 February to consider the responses to consultation on this document and branches who wish to express any views need to communicate these in good time, although the document circulated to branches neglects to mention to whom branches should respond or by what deadline.

Any Greater London branches who let me have their comments can be assured that I will pass them on. However I also hope that branches will receive some further information about how to respond as a result of a request made at the Committee meeting on 22 January.

What the report does not tell you

The report does not tell you that the earlier comments from both the Health and Local Government Service Groups indicated – in effect – opposition to the proposals now being put forward (certainly opposition to their hasty introduction). Nor does the report point out that the proposals have been supported neither by the National Executive Council nor by the Development and Organisation Committee.

The report does not in fact explain very much about what is proposed to happen. The role of sectors will, we are told, be enhanced at the expense of the role of Service Groups, which is problematic since Service Groups are headed by directly elected Committees whereas sectors are generally run by indirectly elected Committees.I fear that indirectly elected Committees are far more vulnerable to manipulation.

Here are some comments which might be worth making;

1. In the Introduction it is stated that; “The initial consultation exercise with SGEs and relevant sectors – (e.g. FE, CVS) identified a significant level of support for either moderate or high level change. ” However, the Local Government Service Group, representing the majority of UNISON members opposed both these options and the Health Service Group supported neither. The report therefore materially misrepresents the response to consultation.

2. Again in the Introduction it is stated, of the document, that “These proposals set out in greater detail our recommendations on new structures in order that a wider consultation and debate can take place across the union in the period leading up to National Delegate Conference 2009. ” However this document was issued to branches shortly before the Xmas holiday and includes no information upon how to respond to consultation. The NEC Development and Organisation Committee has been called to a meeting on 10 February at which it will have to agree Rule Amendments if these are to be put to National Delegate Conference 2009. This timetable is hardly consistent with a genuine intention to promote debate within the Union.

3. The recommendations of the report have not been endorsed by any lay body of the Union. Although the report was put to the NEC Development and Organisation Committee for approval, the Committee did not approve the report but simply noted it and agreed that it should be the subject of further consultation. The report gives the impression throughout that it is presenting proposals which have some official sanction. This is materially misleading.

4. The report provides that, in respect of the election of sector committees, “the current provision for indirect elections would be replaced by an NEC scheme of options for elections. ” No details of such a scheme are provided. This could threaten democratic lay control of the bodies overseeing negotiations with the employers.

5. The report says of the Service Group Liaison Committee that “the role of this committee needs to be strengthened and developed .” However this is a Committee which is not directly accountable to lay members in any way, and which was criticised by the Local Government Service Group Conference in 2007 for its failures in respect of the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme. The promotion of the role of the Service Group Liaison Committee is the promotion of a structure which has failed to defend UNISON members and which fails the most basic tests of democratic accountability.

6. The report states that “The consultation period will allow for full debate on the configuration of sectors to ensure the proposed configuration will allow sectors to develop as proposed. ” As there has been no serious attempt to allow for a consultation period – branches not having been advised or encouraged to respond to these proposals, this simply has not happened.

7. The report states that; “All bargaining groups will be on an equal footing regardless of size so that their relative influence will be proportionate. ” This is nonsensical. If influence is to be proportionate then larger groups must have greater influence and if all groups (whether representing 1,000 or 100,000) are on an equal footing then their relative influence cannot be proportionate. There are arguments in favour of each approach, but the fact is that this report suggests that both conflicting approaches can be accommodated at once when this is clearly impossible. This is a very poor piece of work.
   

8. The report asks “Are these proposals set in stone?” The answer is that they cannot be as they have never been endorsed by any democratic elected body of lay members. There is no doubt that we need to review and revise our structures. However we would be doing our members a disservice if we were to endorse these ill thought-out proposals, which have the sanction of no elected body within our Union and offer no demonstrable benefits to any of our members.

I hope that Branches in Greater London will now take the time to comment on this document, whether you agree with me or its authors (or neither!) and that you will insist that the important question of the future structure of our Union should be decided by our members in our branches and workplaces.

I am not conservative about UNISON's structures. I would countenance the abolition of almost any part of our structures (excluding branches, Conference and self-organised groups) if it could be shown that this would make our Union more effective. However, I am not in favour of our allowing the admittedly ramshackle nature of our existing structures to become an excuse for empowering the National Executive Council to change these structures on the basis of such a deeply flawed report.

Navel-gazing about our national structures is much less helpful than using the new branch assessment process to focus on making our existing structures work for our members.

Fight Royal Mail Privatisation

I am, as the bit up above on the blog makes clear, a member of the Labour Representation Committee (the rank and file organisation for socialists within the Labour Party). I get some stick for this from time to time from those on the right-wing who don't understand the importance of socialism and from those on the left who don't understand the workers' movement but I am happy with this affiliation.

This evening was a good example of why the LRC has a valuable role to play as I spent it at a working group of LRC activists organising the LRC's support for the campaign of LRC affiliate, the Communications Workers Union (CWU) against the Hooper report proposals for the part privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Or, as they should be described, the Mandelson proposals for the part privatisation of the Royal Mail.

A reading of the EDM on this subject might lead you to think that the Hooper proposals are a bit of a curate's egg. And they are. Proposals for the Government to deal with the Royal Mail pension deficit are sound (and a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of bailing out the banks!)

But would you want to dip your bread in an egg that was good in parts?

Hooper is about driving Royal Mail out of the public sector and it needs to be vigorously opposed.

Fighting privatisation is hard. The CWU have a proud record and some good victories in the past but now is no time to be complacent.

The trade union movement is full of defeatists who think that all we can ever do is to accommodate to the changes around us and who are prepared to tolerate privatisation if they think they can secure recognition with the new private employers.

UNISON policy is clear. We oppose privatisation and we must oppose this privatisation. The CWU can win again but this is a job for the whole labour and trade union movement.

I hope that model motions for UNISON branches will shortly be available (and if any London branch has a meeting at which they could move an Emergency Motion to Regional Council before close of business on 27 January please get in touch!)

In the mean time if your MP has not signed EDM 428 write to them and tell them to do so now (I think an email would be ok...)

A note much later than this post (on 12 May 2009) - I have removed a link from the post because it caused offence.

Privatisation of the Post would cause even more offence!

A ceasefire is not enough

Of course any ceasefire - however poorly observed - is almost inevitably better than the absence of a ceasefire.

In general the fewer people who are killed the better.

However, as today's Morning Star points out, an Israeli ceasefire does nothing to lift the siege of Gaza or to resolve the problems underlying the conflict.

First among these must be the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.

I hope that the mobilisation in support of the Palestinians which we have seen in the trade unions in recent weeks can now be sustained.

We need to raise funds to meet the pressing material needs of the people of Gaza - and to sustain the political pressure on our Government, and those of the European Union, to isolate Israel whilst the occupation continues.

Fight racism and injustice

Regular readers (Sid and Doris blogger) will be aware that I am a Labour Party member. I don't often post links to papers published by supporters of other political organisations.

However this week's Socialist Worker puts clearly into the public domain some shocking news connected to the case of my friend and former UNISON NEC member Yunus Bakhsh.

Follow the link for the full story, but it here's a precis.

Yunus faced disciplinary action from both his employer and trade union as a result of allegations of bullying. In his defence Yunus suggested that the complaints may have been motivated by racism. This argument was, as I understand it, disregarded.

Now it has come to light that one of his accusers appears to have been "Facebook friends" with far right activists and to have actively joined racist groups on Facebook. Furthermore there are indications that the British National Party had inside information on the case against Yunus.

I understand that UNISON is investigating these revelations and I - and I am sure other NEC members - shall certainly ask for a thorough investigation and regular updates. The legitimacy of the disciplinary action taken against Yunus must be called into question by this news - particularly in the absence of any explanation for the information which has come to light from the complainant.

I am proud to be a UNISON member - and one of the reasons I am proud of this is that I believe wholeheartedly in the sincerity of our commitment to fight racism in general and to confront the far right in particular. We must now find a way, in this particular case, to live up to UNISON's best traditions and put right an injustice.

LRC Report

The National Committee of the Labour Representation Committee met today.

It elected an Executive Committee (the candidates I supported had the luck that is so often associated with that support and were defeated).

The major item for debate was - of course - the economic crisis.

We agreed to campaign around the need for a socialist response to the crisis - backing the "Peoples Charter" which is still being drafted in drawn out secret horse-trading on the left.

Whilst the Charter will be fairly vague and general, and its genesis is (perhaps unavoidably) in the worst tradition of (no longer) smoke filled rooms, it will be a positive and progressive development.

All socialists need to unite around certain core demands for which we need to win mass support in the labour movement and the working class. Central to these demands is probably the real and meaningful nationalisation of the major banks under democratic control.

I hope that the proponents of the Charter make real headway towards the ambitious goal of a million signatures, but I also hope that the demands that will be reflected in the Charter will also be taken up and adopted by trade unions and Constituency Labour Parties.

There were a number of other debates this afternoon, though none of such immediate and central importance. One critical campaign for the coming months will be to oppose the "Hooper Report" proposals for the privatisation of Royal Mail. These proposals pose an existential threat to the CWU and also probably to that Union's affiliation to the Labour Party.

Privatisation of the Royal Mail would be a massive defeat for the working class and a full scale assault on one of the bastions of trade union strength in the economy. It is a stupid and unpopular proposal which will win the Labour Government neither friends nor votes.

The LRC will be to the fore in resisting this attack - and I hope that UNISON branches will get behind our CWU comrades in defending one of our oldest public services.

A number of other proposals for campaigning activities were discussed. I hope to go on to report on their success in the coming months.

Time for a change

UNISON has so much potential and so much promise.

We, as UNISON members, could achieve so much.

In the past year it was the line of the UNISON leadership which prevented an effective joint public sector struggle over pay.

In the years before that it was UNISON's leadership who prevented active unity over public service pensions.

I know this because I have been (a minority!) part of that leadership which has so let us down.

Let us now fight for a leadership for our wonderful trade union which deserves our excellent membership.

Yes we can....

Infantile Disorders

Parenthood is the scariest thing I have done in my life.If you are both a parent and honest (remember the kids aren't listening!) then I bet you think that too!

One consequence of parenthood is that we are prone to describe the conduct of others (as appropriate) in ways which really fit the behaviour of our children.

Today I learned that a member of a tiny ultra-leftist clique on my Branch Committee views me as a dangerous animal. The depth of the compassion which I feel for that person cannot be expressed in a way that is not patronising.

But I am ok with patronising those who deserve it!

My children are great activists who know in their hearts what is right and will stand up for that as necessary. Grown-up ultral-leftists can do the same (and I wish them well in trying to do so!)

In the mean time trade unionists know that we need to support one another. And we do.

Regional AGM

The Annual General Meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Council is almost upon us.

Wednesday 4 February is the date in question.

All those who believe that our Union should be led by lay members who take their lead from the membership (rather than the office) must ensure that our branches turn out their full voting delegation on 4 February.

While you wait, here is my report to the Regional AGM;

National Executive Council report to 2009 Regional AGM

In this report to the Regional Council Annual General Meeting I will deal with just a few of the main issues which have arisen in the past year.

Branches who want more information can contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk or on 07957505571. I am happy to attend branch meetings as are my NEC colleagues.

Pay

The past year has seen a further fall in the living standards of UNISON members as our pay campaigns failed to deliver increases which match the rising cost of living. The National Executive Council (NEC) does not exercise real authority in our Union, and particularly not in relation to “service group” issues, where individual service groups have some autonomy and the (generally unaccountable) Service Group Liaison Committee holds sway.

General Secretary Dave Prentis began the year committed to a “sector by sector” approach to building the unity of public sector unions to fight on pay. However, in the light of the experience of the past year he has now agreed (in response to questions at the NEC) that this approach did not deliver the goods. Had we been able, at least, to unite those who took action on pay in April 2008 with those who took action in July we might have done better.

We struggled to mobilise members to take action over pay when they did not believe that the Union had a strategy to win. I hope that we will learn the lessons of the pay campaigns of 2008 in facing up to the threats to jobs and pensions in 2009. We need to build united action with those who are willing to take action and we need to accept the harsh reality that this Government is our enemy and not our friend.

Pensions

The NEC has received regular updates in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme. There seems to be little prospect that members in England will benefit from extended protection of the “Rule of 85”. Less satisfactory arrangements for medical retirement have also now been imposed. Tory attacks upon public sector pension provision indicate that we will need a united front to protect all public service pensions in the coming year.

Equal Pay

Much of the time of the NEC (and of our senior national officials) has been taken up with equal pay litigation during 2008. There are serious limitations upon what can be reported because of the eagerness of “no win no fee” solicitors to encourage legal action against trade unions. Case law has developed in a fairly damaging way during the course of the year as a result of judgements in the Allen and Bainbridge cases among others.

Fighting the Far Right

2008 saw the election of a BNP representative to the Greater London Assembly. 2009 threatens us with the prospect of BNP members of the European Parliament. UNISON has been (and must remain) in the forefront of fighting the far right. I have received information which suggests the presence within UNISON (in another Region) of sympathisers with BNP politics. I have raised this with our General Secretary and have been assured that this is under investigation. It has been reported to the NEC that we now have legal advice which suggests that we can take action to exclude active supporters of far right organisations from our Union.

UNISON Democracy

I was very pleased that Conference agreed last year that there should be a review of the democracy guidelines within our Union (and that Conference affirmed the right of branches to campaign for their own policies in national ballots!) This will continue to be a live issue in 2009 and members who believe that our Union must and will continue to be lay led will need to pay attention to developments.

UNISON’s Political Funds

Conference last year agreed a review of the operation of our political funds and the NEC has agreed that this will lead to a report to Conference in 2010. In the mean time branches may wish to prepare for the consultation on this review – it was very clear from the vote on reprioritisation of motions at last year’s Conference that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the manifest inadequacy of our political work at present.

Economic Crisis

I was very pleased that the NEC agreed a positive and progressive statement about the economic crisis at its meeting in October 2008. I was disappointed that the majority of members of the Regional Committee failed to understand UNISON’s policy when agreeing their position on motions to the (regrettably inquorate) Regional Council meeting in December. The failure of unregulated capitalism makes the case very dramatically for public provision of public services. 2009 could be the year in which socialist politics are adopted by the trade union movement – if we have the confidence to advance them.

Happy New Year

I wish all Regional Council delegates a Happy New Year in spite of the problems which we know we will face in 2009. I realise that the Regional lay leadership and their supporters on the Regional Committee have supported the failed approach to pay campaigns in 2008 and are pleased with UNISON’s work in the Labour Party and that they will therefore disagree with the tone of this report. You, as a delegate to the Regional Council, have a choice about who will lead our Union in 2009. If you disagree with me you know what to do.

Against racism from royals

The latest rubbish from the third in line to the throne reminds me of just why, for as long as I can remember the capacity for thought, I have been a republican.

New Labour began claiming all sorts of "modernising" credentials, but the most elementary modernisation of the British state was, of course, beyond them. The Prime Ministerial patronage which reduces the Commons to bovine complacency rests on the sovereignity of the crown in Parliament, so the abolition of the monarchy is, and remains, an important demand for socialists and trade unionists.

That said, criticising the lazy and stupid racism of an unappealing member of the aristocracy (with or without royal blood) is hardly demanding or cutting edge criticism. The ignorant casual racism of the Prince is the tip of the iceberg of everyday racism in our society.

Racism in the workplace is a daily reality for our members - and we must all be able to look to UNISON representatives to stand up against that racism and to represent our members.

It would be very much worse in some ways - and more relevant to our immediate concerns as trade union activists - if a UNISON representative, particularly one trained by our Union and therefore familiar with our strong anti-racist policies, were to associate openly and in public with racists views and their adherents.

That would be a very serious matter and complaints which were made about it would need to be treated with the utmost seriousness (whoever made them).

UNISON on the Palestine demo

I was really pleased to see a better number of UNSION banners on yesterday's enormous demonstration in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

UNISON's President and General Secretary were both there with the national banner - and the Greater London Regional banner was carried by a number of Regional activists (and friends and family). A particularly honourable mention goes to Jean Geldart for taking custody of the banner at the end of the demonstration.

With the attacks on Gaza intensifying we need to step up political pressure on the Government. Building on UNISON's existing policy we need to call for an end to diplomatic relations with Israel until their guns fall silent, and - now - we need to build an approach to economic and cultural boycotts which can defeat zionism as we defeated apartheid.

UNISON supports the Palestinians

I am very pleased that UNISON is supporting the Palestinians in the face of Israeli military aggression.

It’s excellent news that the Union has made a donation of £10,000 to Medical Aid for Palestinians and is encouraging branches to make donations.

I hope that the Lambeth Branch Annual General Meeting next week will agree a donation, and also that a decent number of branch members will attend Saturday’s demonstration.

The national UNISON banner will be at Hyde Park on Saturday as will the Greater London Regional banner and – I hope – many branch banners.

We need to demonstrate that millions of trade unionists in the UK are on the side of the victims of aggression and that we stand for peace. See you there?

Opposing the pogrom against Palestinians in the Ghetto of Gaza

I was pleased to be able to be among the tens of thousands who demonstrated in London yesterday against the attacks on the people of Gaza.

I was particularly pleased to be asked to help carry one of the few trade union banners on the demonstration, the banner of the Kensington and Chelsea local government branch of UNISON, which we then took home to Kensington for the protest outside the Israeli embassy.

The disregard shown by the Israeli military for the humanity of the Palestinian people and the lack of concern shown by the leaders of the Western powers challenge all trade unionists to respond.

UNISON has called upon our members to support protests against the attacks on Gaza. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign are organising regular protests, and the website of the Stop the War Coalition confirms what was announced yesterday – that there will be a march on the Israeli Embassy next Saturday, 10 January.

In the next week every UNISON branch should dust off its banner and organise delegations to support next Saturday’s demonstration. I hope and expect to see the national banner there too.

Elementary internationalism – in line with UNISON Conference policy – calls for an immediate end to Israel's military assault on Gaza and an immediate end to the blockade and siege on Gaza. Our task is to put pressure on our Government, whose “even handed” response to this grossly uneven battle amounts to tacit support for criminal aggression against the Palestinian people.

Happy New Year?

I have ignored this poor blog for a fortnight whilst I have rested and recovered from a trying year.

Now for 2009 and economic depression...

As you might imagine I am focused on what is coming up in UNISON.

In a little over four weeks the Annual General Meeting of the Greater London Regional Council will have the opportunity to elect a leadership committed to democracy and lay control by supporting the slate headed by candidate for Convenor, Malcolm Campbell.

Over the next month or so candidates will also be seeking nominations for the forthcoming elections to UNISON's National Executive Council. I'll be seeking nomination again - and hoping that enough real socialists are elected to make a positive difference to the direction of the Union.

One of these days I'll compose the blog post which needs to be written to pose the obvious question to supporters of the Morning Star about what their approach to UNISON is. It's good to be in a Union which takes the right line about Palestine and Cuba, but a radicalism that comes to life thousands of miles away (or hundreds of years in the past) doesn't deliver the goods on pay or pensions.

While there will be democratic choices for members to take at Regional and national (and branch) level, in the mean time work will carry on on the review of Service Groups (which needs careful attention from the rank and file) and on the reviews of UNISON's democracy guidelines and political funds. I'll blog here about these soon.

So, for those who like to read about the internal goings on of the Union look back here from time to time. And for those who don't, you may be reading the wrong blog...

Hands Off Our Pensions

With the CBI now joining the chorus to attack public sector pensions it is clear that we face a period of intensifying assault upon the living standards of working people in this country and around the world.

The economic crisis will be used to justify and excuse all manner of things if we permit it.

The answer is not to bargain for pay cuts or lay offs, although these will be seen, but to defend all that we can with every means at our disposal.

As we try to defend every job and all of our conditions at a rank and file level we need our leaders to articulate an alternative which challenges the view that this is the best that we can hope for.

2009 is not, I fear, going to be a Happy New Year. Start saving now so that you can stand the strain of the strike action which will be needed.

Purnell's Victorian Values

It's something of an understatement for PCS to describe the Welfare white paper as “regressive”.

The odious creature James Purnell has managed to combine Workfare with privatisation to bring us the worst of all possible worlds founded on openly Tory ideology (with open – and necessary – Tory support).

The idea of making the poor work for nothing (or very little) in a recession is not new and certainly not modern. In the 1930s the state built “Instructional Centres” - labour camps to which the long term unemployed could be sent to work.

In the 1830s the New Poor Law was founded on the concept of “less eligibility” - the idea that the lot of the “pauper” should be worse than that of the labouring poor.

The purpose of this approach has nothing to do with welfare – and nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of “hard working families” - on the contrary, the state is stepping in to try to ensure that the “reserve army of labour” is forced out into the labour market in order to do its job of depressing wages and holding down working class living standards in order to restore profitability.

New Labour of course bring a novel little twist to this toxic rehash of right-wing ideology by proposing that the whole thing be done in the private sector. I hope UNISON will be joining those who condemn this outrage.

UNISON NEC report to London branches

This is my personal report to London UNISON branches of the UNISON NEC meeting which took place on Wednesday 3 December. (A bit long for a blog post, so sorry for that).

At the commencement of the meeting, at the request of the General Secretary, the NEC agreed to send a message of condolences to Birmingham branch secretary Carole Hagans, who lost family members in the recent M6 tragedy, make a donation to the family's charity of choice (“Feed My Lambs”) and circulate a request for donations to branches and regions.

Later during the course of the meeting the President announced a message of support from the NEC for the Barnet branch who were due to be lobbying their Cabinet that evening in opposition to the “Future Shape” privatisation proposals.

The following were the main items of business at the meeting;

UNISON Objectives and Priorities for 2009

The NEC endorsed a report setting out our objectives and priorities for the coming year. These remain the four current objectives (Objective One – recruiting, organising, representing and retaining members; Objective Two – negotiating, bargaining and promoting equality; Objective Three – campaigning and promoting UNISON, and; Objective Four – an efficient and effective Union). Health service NEC members Kate Ahrens and Karen Reissmann successfully proposed an amendment to reaffirm our support for public services and opposition to privatisation.

Financial planning and budgets

The NEC adopted a budget for the coming year. This assumes slower growth in subscription income than in recent years and makes further significant provision for the costs of legal action in relation to equal pay. The coming year will also see UNISON beginning to draw upon the loan to build the new HeadQuarters building. A financial challenge will be presented by the soon to be received valuation of the UNISON staff pension fund. The General Secretary assured the NEC that this challenge can be managed over a number of years.

Recruitment

The Head of Recruitment reported that recruitment figures for 2008 had improved significantly in the autumn. It is predicted that UNISON will grow by 1.4% this year. Greater London Region is reportedly within a narrow margin of meeting our target for 2% growth.

Equal Pay

As usual the NEC received a useful and informative, but confidential and legally privileged, report on Equal Pay. Updated negotiating guidance is due out in the coming week and regular updated information is available online at http://www.unison.org.uk/equalpay/branches.asp,

Public sector pay negotiations

The General Secretary introduced a round up of the state of play in all public sector pay negotiations. He reported that the public sector unions had met on the previous day, and would be meeting again in January. January will also see UNISON’s annual pay seminar, at which attempts are made to coordinate pay negotiations across the Union. I asked the General Secretary, as I had previously, if he agreed that the approach of building unity “sector by sector” within the public sector had failed to deliver for our members (almost all of whom have seen a real terms pay cut over the past year). He agreed and emphasised that the Unions were now discussing whether to have direct talks with the Government about public sector pay.

Local Government Pension Scheme

The Deputy General Secretary introduced a report on the continuing discussions over the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). It was noted that the Government have now issued guidance on ill-health retirement under the new scheme in spite of outstanding disagreements with the trade unions. There has been no progress in extending the protection of the “Rule of 85” and, from the report to the NEC, it would appear that there is now little prospect of this happening. Discussions have now moved on to “cost sharing” (which is a euphemism for further increases in employee contribution rates) against a background of attacks on the LGPS, and public sector pensions generally, from the Conservative Party.

UNISON response to the financial crisis

The Chair of the Policy Committee introduced a report updating the position since the statement adopted at the October NEC. She reported that this had been well received by members.

Another London NEC member said that rather than sending Xmas cards this year she would make a donation to UNISON Welfare in view of the likely impact of the financial crisis on our members.

The General Secretary said that he hoped that UNISON would mount a major public campaign in defence of public services, taking our campaign activities out onto the streets, on the basis that if we don’t do it no one else will. This is likely to include a major national demonstration in the spring when the “G20” economic summit is likely to take place in England.

Rule D3.5.8

The NEC endorsed a proposal from October’s meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee to have transitional arrangements for the introduction of a Rule agreed at this year’s Conference which precludes NEC members elected to represent a Service Group (and therefore holding ex officio seats upon the Service Group Executive - SGE) from simultaneously holding any other seat on the SGE.

The NEC has agreed, in effect, that this rule will not take effect until the 2011 NEC elections. Some NEC members queried whether the power of the NEC to interpret the Rules could be used in this way.

Collective responsibility of NEC members

The longest debate at the December NEC, with eighteen contributions from NEC members, concerned a proposal to interpret the Rules (in a new and different way) to prohibit NEC members from attending Conference as branch delegates. A flavour of this discussion can be given in the observation from several of those opposed to this proposal that it was “taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut” (to which local government NEC member, Glenn Kelly, who attended last year’s Conference as a delegate from the Bromley branch, objected to being characterised as a “nut”).

The Union had received detailed legal advice concerning this proposal from Leading Counsel. Although this legal advice dealt in detail with the rights and responsibilities of all NEC members, the NEC was told that individual members of the NEC were not permitted to see the legal advice, only the summary of it included in a report written by officers. The Presidential Team and the Chair of the D&O Committee had seen the full legal advice, and the NEC was advised that this was perfectly appropriate as this was what they had been elected to do by the NEC. I intend to pursue a request for sight of this legal advice, and will also be interested to know how much money we spent seeking Counsel’s opinion.

Since this report had been tabled at Wednesday’s NEC, having also been tabled at the D&O Committee the previous day several NEC members, myself included, felt that the NEC should not allow itself to be bounced into agreeing a new interpretation of the Rules, overturning a previous NEC decision, without the opportunity for further thought. A proposal to delay the decision was however defeated by 29 votes to 16 and the NEC endorsed the report.

General Secretary’s report

The General Secretary used the opportunity of his report to advise the NEC, as had been reported to the D&O Committee the previous day, that UNISON has taken legal advice in response to the receipt of the leaked membership list of the far-right British National Party and would be taking steps to identify any BNP members in UNISON. He warned the NEC that we could expect attacks from the BNP as we put ourselves in the forefront of opposition to the far-right.

Dave Prentis also congratulated the Westminster City branch on defeating proposals to introduce fingerprint scanning equipment and agreed to investigate similar moves elsewhere in the public services. The NEC also agreed to send a message of support to members in the Northern Ireland community and voluntary sector under threat from 'dissidents' over their work in community projects.

NEC Election timetable

The NEC endorsed the timetable for the forthcoming round of NEC elections. Nominations will open on 5 January and close on 13 February. The ballot period will be between 14 April and 15 May and the results will be known just ahead of National Delegate Conference in June.

As always, if any branch would like further information please do not hesitate to get in touch.

UNISON members fighting Tory attacks

The early arrival of the festive season has delayed my circulating a full report from Wednesday’s NEC meeting – watch this space later in the weekend for that. General Secretary Dave Prentis told the NEC that we need to take our campaign in defence of public services out on to the streets.

Barnet UNISON are showing the way. They achieved some excellent publicity for their campaign of opposition to wholesale privatisation on Wednesday evening. The Tory scheme to outsource anything that isn’t nailed down is clearly a glimpse of the future under a Cameron Government

Another such glimpse is provided by the slaughter of jobs in Tory Hammersmith and Fulham – including the relocation of caller centre jobs out of London. London local government affords us evidence which all those who know that a Tory Government would be even worse than New Labour should want to see widely publicised.

So I wait (and wait) to see support for London UNISON members’ campaigns where it ought to be being expressed. Dave Prentis congratulated the Westminster branch at the NEC for having prevented the employer introducing fingerprint recognition machines – and rightly so! We need official support and solidarity for all the UNISON members in our Region who are facing Tory attacks.

Report of the UNISON Development and Organisation Committee

This is the report of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee 2 December 2008 which I have sent to London UNISON branches.


This is a personal report of today’s meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee. I will deal with only some major items in this report. The meeting commenced with brief reports on recruitment and on learning activity.


Far Right political parties and trade unions


We then received an update on Clause 18 of the Employment Bill (as was) dealing with the ability of trade unions to exclude active members of far right organisations from membership. The unsatisfactory provisions of the Act will come into force on 1 April next and UNISON is working with Searchlight and the TUC to consider a legal challenge.


UNISON has also considered what action to take in relation to the recent publication of a list of alleged members of the British National Party. UNISON has had legal advice that we could lawfully cross reference our membership lists with this list but could not take any action simply by virtue of their being on the list. However any activity by members of far right organisations could lead to disciplinary action by the Union – new guidance will be issued to branches on this point. The Union has had legal advice that we could lawfully strengthen Rule I.3 which deals with this issue.


Service Group Structures


We then moved on to debate a report on future Service Group structures. Sue Highton introduced the paper on behalf of Jane Carolan. This paper had been circulated less than one working day in advance of the meeting. Frank Hont, North West Regional Secretary presented the proposals in detail.


I expressed reservations about being asked to endorse such major proposals with so little opportunity to consider the documentation. I was very critical of the way in which the proposals empowered the Service Group Liaison Committee, which in my view suffers a serious democratic deficit.


Some other members expressed anger at my comments that many parts of our Union are not lay led and that often the lay leadership is led by the nose by officials. I subsequently clarified that I had not intended to offend any individual.


Kate Ahrens, representing the Health Service Group made the point that the current proposals do not provide for the collective accountability of sector committees to any collective body of members such as a Conference. Service Group Conferences would, under the proposals being considered, have no useful role in relation to bargaining.


Glenn Kelly pointed out on behalf of the local government group that the largest service group representing the majority of our members opposed the scale of change being proposed. The Health Service Group also did not support this. He pointed out that Rule Changes will be required and that it would be unlikely that Conference would support changes which went against the views of our largest groups of members.


Paul Glover from Energy opposed the proposals insofar as the affected members in the current Energy Service Group. He felt that the proposals before the Committee did not reflect the outcome of consultation.


Bob Oram from the North West Region spoke in defence of the proposals but only to criticise those who had expressed reservations and concerns. He felt that this had been discussed for five years and we should get on and agree with it.


John Jones, representing Water and Environment echoed the concerns which had been expressed by the representative from Energy.


At the conclusion of this important debate the Committee did not agree to endorse the report as had been recommended but instead, on the recommendation of the Chair (Chris Tansley) that the report would now go out for further consultation.


Subject to discussion at tomorrow’s meeting of the full NEC, the report will be circulated to all branches. If any Greater London branch would like a copy (or indeed a copy of any other report considered at the Committee meeting) please get in touch.


RMS Update


The Committee received a detailed presentation on developments in relation to the RMS, in particular long awaited developments in relation to matching up our membership database with DOCAS information from the employers.


Election processes and timetable


The Committee agreed a report on the procedures for the forthcoming NEC elections. This will now go to tomorrow’s NEC meeting and I will therefore cover it in my report from that meeting.


Collective responsibility


The Committee was told that the Union had sought legal advice on whether individual NEC members should be permitted to attend Conference as delegates from branches. The Committee resolved to agree a report, which had been tabled that morning, recommending that tomorrow’s NEC rule that NEC members may not attend Conference in any other capacity. I was among a minority who opposed this at the meeting and will oppose it again tomorrow at the NEC as I consider it unnecessary.


Branches under Regional supervision


The Committee received a written report on the cases of branches under Regional supervision. I questioned the accuracy of comments in the report about the Newham local government branch. The Chair ruled that the meeting should move on and not discuss the report in detail. Pete Gaskin from the Eastern Region expressed dissatisfaction that it had not been possible for Committee members to raise issues about matters covered in this report.


I will be in touch with an NEC report later in the week. I hope to see delegates from branches at the Regional Council meeting on 9 December 2008.

Scottish water strike online

Having been thinking about good uses of the internet within our Union I have to mention reporting of the Scottish Water strike over at the UNISON Scotland blog. This is a good example of comprehensive reporting of the effectiveness of strike action spread over a large geographical area.

Some other Regions could learn a bit from this approach to communications – but also from the approach to industrial relations which is being communicated. Congratulations to the strikers – and to the blogger.

Branch blogging

I am pleased to report the return to the blogosphere of the Lambeth UNISON branch blog.


Every union branch should have some sort of web presence and I think a blog has quite a lot of potential given the ease with which it can be updated.


Not all members have web access and we need to be alert to the need to avoid creating two tiers of members or activists by over reliance on any one form of communication.


Also, the internet is not necessarily accessible to all members - and trade union branches have a responsibility to try to communicate equally with all our members.


However, there is plenty of evidence that the web can be used for organising and an increasing number of union branches are out here in cyberspace.


One issue on which I would welcome views is how union branches balance the need to control expression of opinion on what is - unavoidably - an "official" web presence of the Union, with the desire to permit a free flow of debate and ideas.


Which is the best UNISON branch blog or website? Can anyone beat Barnet's?

It's the economy...

It is impossible not to smile at headlines announcing a higher marginal tax rate for the rich – even if it won’t be introduced until after the next General Election and then only if we can do 1992 in reverse. Taken together with proposals to reduce the regressive Value Added Tax (VAT), whatever the economic consequences, the political feel is of a Labour Government treading tentatively leftwards.

Given the scale of the economic crisis unfolding around us, I only hope that the leaks from the Government deliberately understate the changes which the Chancellor will announce this afternoon – he needs to shock the Commons in the same way Geoffrey Howe did when he put VAT up to 15% all those years ago.

A massive fiscal stimulus (through tax cuts and increased spending) together with further reductions in interest rates clearly have the potential – if coordinated globally – to moderate the severity of the coming recession. This is worth supporting for itself, because each job that is not lost is one household saved from poverty – and because the slower and gentler the increase in unemployment and the swifter and faster the subsequent reduction the less the damage that is done to our bargaining position as trade unionists.

However, as trade unionists we need our leaders to resist the urge to act as cheerleaders for Labour Ministers. We need to demand, in response to the detail of the Government’s economic announcements, that the contours of the fiscal stimulus in particular support our members’ interests. We also need to raise our eyes beyond tomorrow’s – and next year’s - unemployment figures and develop and articulate policy demands to reshape our economy in the interests of working people. UNISON’s NEC began to rise to this challenge in the statement adopted in October – we need to build on and develop this work now.

The Government’s economic announcements should today respond to some extent to UNISON’s demand that “spending on public services must be increased to meet greater social need and counteract the downturn in the private sector. This will necessitate an increase in public debt, currently low by international and historic standards, and a rebalancing of our system of taxation so that corporations and wealthy individuals are required to pay their fair share.” This is welcome, but we now need to elaborate our demands.

In the immediate term, we need to point out that low paid workers have a high “marginal propensity to consume” and that a relaxation of the Government’s unjust public sector pay policy, particularly if it coincided with really significant cuts in VAT and continuing low interest rates would have a very positive reflationary impact.

There is no reason – apart from dogma and inertia – why, for example, the Local Government Employers, with Government support, should not now approach the arbitrators seeking to resolve the 2008 pay round in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and tell them that the employers want to give an immediate boost to the earnings of the lowest paid through, for example, an additional flat rate increase backdated to 1 April. The Government could fund this directly through the revenue account and meet the cost by borrowing, or it could allow local authorities to capitalise the expenditure. Similarly, the Government could tell the NHS employers that they should forget about arguing that they don’t have a recruitment problem and should agree that the pay review body considers an increase in the second and third years of the current pay deal – the terms of reference for pay review bodies may need to be addressed to enable them to take account of the macroeconomic impact of their recommendations.

However, even more important than what happens in the short term is that the trade union movement should express some opinions about the long term which reflect the interests of our members.

The UNISON NEC statement in October was clear that we need fundamental change in the finance sector stating that “intervention to secure the banking system should not merely “bail-out” those who have caused this crisis by socialising the losses and taking on unprofitable parts of the sector. Instead any public financial support for the sector should entitle the public to share in the benefits of any future recovery, and must be accompanied by an extension of regulatory controls to ensure that the excesses of the recent
period are not repeated or rewarded.”

I don’t think that now is the time for timidity in developing this policy further. Just as UNISON supports public ownership of our utilities or our transport infrastructure, so we should respond to the credit crisis and the consequent recession by demanding democratic public control of the banks, as a central element of our financial and economic infrastructure – and I agree with fellow UNISON member John McDonnell, MP that public control can best be ensured by public ownership. Nationalisation of the major banks is not now an unrealistic demand.

One counter argument to this demand, as expressed at last week’s UNISON Greater London Regional Committee by the Regional Finance Convenor is that “we don’t want civil servants running banks.” Leaving to one side the questions of whether disdain for public servants is welcome in officials of a public service union – and of whether bankers have shown themselves particularly adept at running banks in the recent past! – this is simply an argument against public ownership per se. We need a more mature debate about the contours of public and private ownership, and it is fairly obvious that recent events at least pose the question of whether exclusively private sector ownership and control of the banks is in the interests of our members.

Another counter-argument, echoing the words of the Tories before 1945, is that we should not want to nationalise “our savings and our pensions.” Now of course, nationalising an institution does not nationalise the deposits it holds (or no one would have any money left in Northern Rock). It may be a shame that for all the work that is done on capital stewardship, pension funds have yet to redirect the economy for the benefit of those on whose behalf they invest. However, such is the nature of a capitalist economy driven by profit. If we want a banking industry that works for the public good we need to place it under democratic public control.

We should not be afraid to argue for democracy in relation to our economy just as we argue for democracy in other areas of public life. A similar argument can be applied to further develop UNISON’s current demand that “interest rates must be cut as a matter of urgency, and the monetary policy pursued by the Bank of England needs to move on from an exclusive focus upon controlling inflation to one that also seeks to ensure high levels of investment and employment.”

What follows from this is that monetary policy should be restored to democratic control and the technocratic experiment in the “independence” of central banks should come to an end. This was only ever “independence” from popular pressure and democracy, never “independence” from the perceived interests of those with wealth and power.

Underpinning the belief in private ownership of the major banks and financial institutions, and in the “independence” of central banks, is a belief that ordinary people are not to be trusted to run our own economy. We are told that we need experts to do this for us.

On the contrary, now – when the “experts” who have been trying to sell us privatisation for a generation stand exposed as failures – it is up to ordinary trade unionists to have the audacity and the ambition to spell out an alternative.

This is why I hope that UNISON’s Greater London Regional Council will – in December - have the opportunity to debate the motion from the Lambeth local government branch which sets out to build upon and develop the policy agreed by the UNISON NEC in October.

This depends upon whether or not a quorum of delegates attend the meeting – so if you are reading this and are a UNISON member in Greater London, it is in your hands whether we have this debate, or leave it up to the “experts”…

UNISON activists mobilise

I have just been at a well attended meeting of UNISON activists in Birmingham, discussing the various attacks upon socialist activists and the pressing need for a better and stronger Union to defend our members.

I will blog a full report later, but am enthused and encouraged that activists are mobilising now.

UNISON Regional Committee report

Tuesday's meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee was mostly uneventful. It is regrettable that what was described by a former Regional Secretary as the most important Region of what (I believe to be) the most important trade union in the country seems to be doing so little to raise our subterranean Regional profile. I shall mention one or two items worthy of note.

Industrial Action

I was pleased to hear from the Regional Secretary that guidance to branches on industrial action will be updated. UNISON takes almost no official industrial action in Greater London at the moment – and I wish I thought that was because all our members were so happy in our working lives that harmony has broken out in every workplace! No one is eager to strike – but we need to be prepared to take action when the occasion demands it. As a trade union we have to organise ourselves so that, when members take the difficult decision to withdraw our labour and lose pay, our bureaucratic machinery (which we must have to comply with hostile laws) is fit for purpose to help our members achieve their objective – as opposed to erecting hurdles in their way!

Newham branch

The report from the Regional Secretary and Convenor placed into the public domain the news that the Newham local government branch is now under “Regional supervision” (the UNISON equivalent of “special measures”). The Regional Organiser is acting as Branch Secretary.

We were told that the branch had been operating outside national rules “for some time.” Now, we were told, was the time for the Region to step in. Questions about the reasons for the timing of this action went – in effect – unanswered. Deputy Regional Convenor, Conroy Lawrence gallantly stepped in to tell the Committee that we did not want to go into detail but that everything would come out in time. As I said at the meeting, I do hope that this is true. Indeed I shall aim to ensure that it is.

Those who have taken this action can be confident that their actions will be scrutinised.

Hammersmith and Barnet branches

I asked the Regional Secretary and Convenor to consider giving some publicity
to the conduct of loony Tory Councils like job-cutting Hammersmith and “if it moves, privatise it” Barnet. We seem to be missing a trick when it comes to pointing out that Tory Councils in London are showing us all what a Tory Government would be like.

It is a failing of the Regional Labour Link Committee that UNISON is not doing more to expose this nonsense (incidentally I did ask what motions UNISON were putting to the Regional Labour Party Conference on Saturday and was told that there was one on capital stewardship and another one – but no one present could remember what it was...)

With luck UNISON will publicise the campaigns being waged by our members in Barnet and Hammersmith on our website.

Regional Council

The Regional Committee decided (by 9 votes to 8) to oppose a motion from the Lambeth branch on the global financial crisis. I should declare an interest in the Lambeth motion (of course) for which I advocated that the Regional Committee should support the motion.

Opposition was led by the Regional Finance Convenor who worried that nationalising the banks would mean nationalising our pensions and savings. I'll blog further about the arguments for and against this motion.

For now it is up to activists in UNISON branches in London whether or not there is a quorum at the Regional Council on 9 December...

See you there?

Public sector workers need unity

Mixed news today on public sector pay – UNISON members in Scottish Water have voted to strike against a 2.4% offer, and UNITE members in the Health Service throughout the UK have voted to strike against the three year pay deal which the other unions are trying to reopen from the second year onwards.

However, UNISON members in Scottish local government have voted – narrowly – to accept their employers’ two year offer. This may reflect some of the reservations about striking for pay in the current economic climate which appeared to influence the closeness of the recent strike ballot in the NUT.

Against this mixed backdrop I have read criticisms of the decision of the PCS Executive to suspend strike action in response to an offer of negotiations over pay from the Head of the Civil Service. I would have liked to have seen effective united strike action by the public service unions (in line with the policy of the TUC). In the absence of that unity everyone has to make tactical judgements based upon the position in which they find themselves.

As the threat of increasing job cuts compounds the reality of real terms pay cuts for public service workers what we now need more than ever is unity.

PCS strike action suspended

PCS have suspended Monday's strike action in response to an unprecedented offer of national negotiations with the Government (who have agreed that PCS can extend the validity of the mandate for strike action pending these negotiations).

This is a positive sign and is a tribute to the approach of the PCS leadership, who are making it clear that this is only a suspension and that strike action is still on the cards.

Picket lines for Monday morning

Here, for those who can support them on Monday morning, are details of PCS picket lines for the pay strike on Monday 10 November.

I am sure that PCS will welcome other trade unionists - and am equally sure that UNISON will express our full official support for our civil service comrades.

These are the details I have been given;

PICKETS IN Central London -

on Whitehall SW1A- the HQ's of MoD, DEFRA, Cabinet Office, HMRC, Treasury, Department of Health, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, British Council, Department of Culture, Media & Sport

on Victoria Street SW1 - the HQ's of BERR (ex-DTI), MoJ, Metropolitan Police (New Scotland Yd)
Victoria station area - Identitiy & Passport Service, Department for International Development, Department for Communities & Local Gov

Great Peters St/Marsham St SW1 - HQ's of Department of Children, Schools & Families, Home Office, Prison Service, Department for Transport


OTHER LARGE WORKPLACES -
Health & Safety Executive (2 Southwark Bridge, SE1), HMRC/ACAS Euston Tower (Warren St tube), Office of Fair Trading (2-6 Salisbury Square, EC4Y 8JX), Royal Courts of Justice (The Strand), Food Standard Agency (125 Kingsway WC2B 6NH)

Museums and Galleries - National Gallery (Trafalgar Square), British Museum (Bloomsbury), V&A/Science Museum, Natural History Museum (South Kensington), British Library (St Pancras), Tate Modern (Southwark)


Croydon - Home Office (Whitgift Centre, Apollo & Lunar House - all Wellesley Road CR9)
Hastings - Child Support Agency

Around outer London areas and South-East England towns -
all local Tax Offices,
London Met Police stations
Job Centres & Benefit Processing Centres,
Magistrate, County & Crown Courts,
Driving Test Centres,
prisons,
Army, RAF and Navy bases/barracks,
Land Registry.

ports and airports - Coastguard stations in Solent, Dover, etc, Customs (HMRC) and Immigration (Home Office) in Heathow, Gatwick, Dover, Portsmouth, Southampton, etc,

Why we need joint union action over pay

Inflation may yet turn into deflation, but right now the living standards of public sector workers are dropping like a stone as our miserable pay rises of the last few years fall ever further short of rising prices.


The decision of the Executive of the NUT not to call further strike action in the light of the narrowness of the majority for action in their national ballot leaves civil service union PCS almost alone as they embark upon national strike action over pay this coming Monday.


The ballot result of health service members in UNITE will not be known for a few days yet - but the large majority of health service workers are now focused on next year's pay claim (as we are in local government).


Reports from NUT meetings show that appeals to "belt-tightening" as recession bites will have some purchase amongst trade union members, and need to be countered with positive arguments about the macroeconomic impact of raising public sector pay, as well as appeals to justice and collective self-interest.


However, I remain convinced that the decisive reason for the real terms pay cuts experienced by local government workers (including teachers), health workers, civil servants and others over the last while has been the deliberate refusal of the trade unions to take disciplined and united action.


We need to find a way build this unity at a rank and file level if we are to achieve our potential and protect the interests of our members.

MPs let down trade unionists

While the world was watching the US elections last night, Members of Parliament were debating the Employment Bill.

John McDonnell tried to introduce some additional protections for workers taking industrial action – but had to withdraw in the face of Government opposition and a guillotine motion on the Bill.

He did push to a vote on a reasonable proposal to require employers to assist unions in balloting for action.

I thought yesterday that votes on this Bill would test the support for trade unions in Parliament.

We lost by 53 votes to 408. You can see how MPs voted online.

In further debates, the Government also refused to support the placing of trade union environmental representatives on a statutory footing – meaning that we don’t have legal back up to develop this role in the workplace. More worryingly the Government also refused to change the unworkable provisions of the Bill intended to permit trade unions to expel fascists.

US Unions are busily welcoming the election of a President who makes no pretence to be part of the workers movement. In this country we notionally have a “Labour” Party – but our unions cannot get that Party in Government to take even modest steps to assist us.

This is a serious problem and it is getting worse rather than better.

BALLS!

I have not yet had a chance to repair the broken links in recent posts but I could not resist this title for a blog post.

UNISON has condemned Ed Balls, Children’s Minister for his attack on the London Living Wage.

Since Tory Mayor Johnson has been forced to continue to support the London Living Wage – introduced by Ken Livingstone under pressure from London Citizens – it is ironic at the least that a Labour Minister is attacking this progressive policy.

It’s good to see UNISON speaking out on an issue of importance to Londoners, and particularly noteworthy that this is being led by our General Secretary at national level.

UNISON activists in the Region will be waiting to hear what is being done about this at Regional level and how our Regional office will work to build a constructive relationship with London Citizens in the interests of our members and all Londoners.

Blogging links!

Thanks to the reader who pointed out that the links in the last few posts aren't working. Sorry folks - I'll fix it later.
(Update on Wednesday evening - I think I have done now...)

Local Government Pay Euphoria (or not)

Well there we are then, the trade unions in local government (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) have agreed proposed terms of reference for the arbitrator to whom the Executive of the NJC trade union side decided to refer our current pay dispute nearly two months ago.
We are going to agree not to take further action and we expect the employers to agree to implement the arbitrators decision.
Since this is precisely what binding arbitration means it is difficult to view this development as progress in any meaningful sense.
At least we are getting the 2.45% before Christmas.
Try not to spend the back pay all at once folks!

Watching paint dry...

Regular readers (Sid and Doris Blogger) will have noticed a few posts in the last little while. This is because I am sitting up waiting for the results of an election an ocean away...
I can’t decide whether I am watching this because a competition between two fairly right-wing parties neither linked to the organised working class is a vision of our future (or perhaps our present), or because the probable election of a charismatic liberal candidate from an ethnic minority background reminds me of one of my favourite TV programmes.
Thus far the viewing is not yet gripping...

Trade union test for Labour MPs

The main focus of news coverage of the union-backed amendments to the Employment Bill being debated today has been on the attempt to enable trade unions to expel active members of far right political parties. This important question is also the main focus of what UNISON is saying on our website.
However, as others are pointing out, there are other amendments being debated, all of which would in one way or another weaken the constraints on the taking of lawful industrial action. These are all pretty modest.
Preventing employers seeking injunctions for technical breaches of industrial action balloting requirements if they have failed to cooperate with related information requests would level the playing field just a bit.
Tightening restrictions on the use of agency workers to strike break would even things up very slightly (since of course we cannot lawfully call out our colleagues who are already agency workers, we just have to rely on the best of them to respect picket lines).
Making it harder for employers to sack strikers – and giving workers the right to reinstatement if sacked in these circumstances would also moderate just slightly the imbalance in power between employer and employee – and help to address the breaches of international human rights treaties in current UK law.
The United Campaign have issued very straightforward briefings. MPs who support trade unionism will back these amendments to the Employment Bill.
Those who vote against will not deserve the support of trade unionists in any future election.

Barnet UNISON facing the future

Barnet UNISON are facing up to the threat of wholesale privatisation from their madcap Tory employers – their major rally on 11 November is now just a week away.
Barnet call it "future shape" but what it seems to be is an abandonment of direct public service provision (an essentially nineteenth century model).
The trade union rally takes place on Tuesday 11 November 2008 in Conference Room 1, Building 2, North London Business Park at 7pm.
This is a meeting which will be worth a journey into the wilds of North London!
Speakers will include Dexter Whitfield of the European Services Strategy Unit, Nigel Behan from Somerset UNISON and Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary John Burgess.
Whilst the ideology underpinning privatisation has been completely discredited that doesn’t mean that our politicians will easily abandon an approach to public services which opens up new opportunities to make profits from public funds.
Barnet’s meeting is a fine example of the sort of joint union campaigning which is needed. Any UNISON – indeed any union – activist (or official) who can get to Barnet next Tuesday evening should do so. (Unless you are already going to be somewhere else...)