I'm glad to see that the trade union side Executive of the National Joint Council have made suitable remarks about the 0.5% pay offer from the national employers - but the question now must be, what are we to do?
First of all we need to be a lot clearer about what we are asking for - our Head of Local Government rightly points out that local authorities have set aside sums between 1.5% and 2.5% already, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is what we are asking for.
Our claim was for an increase of at least the RPI plus something more for the low paid. Since low paid workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume, the mulitiplier effects of the fiscal stimulus of a pay rise for low paid public sector workers is commensurately enhanced.
That provides a further policy justification for responding to the offer with a proposal to put more money into the pockets of the lowest paid - perhaps by deleting some of the lowest spinal column points?
to do?
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
Flexible working in practice...
Now I know I said earlier today that I would blog further about the extension of the right to request flexible working to all parents of children under 16.
But I am on the way home now, and it's the kids' holidays.
So you'll just have to wait!
Sorry if this upsets any fans...
But I am on the way home now, and it's the kids' holidays.
So you'll just have to wait!
Sorry if this upsets any fans...
Supporting Stalin against SOAS
I was pleased that I was able to get along at lunchtime today to SOAS (that's the School of Oriental and African Studies) for the protest ahead of this afternoon's appeal against the dismissal of Jose Stalin Bermudez, victimised UNISON Branch Chair.
There was an impressive turnout given that the appeal was - unfortunately from a trade union point of view - taking place during the academic holidays. The strong showing reflected the strength of feeling about this case.
It is to be hoped that the SOAS appeal panel will see sense and reinstate Stalin. However speakers with knowledge of the organisation did not encourage optimism on this point.
I was therefore very pleased by two things that I heard at the lunchtime rally. First, UNISON Branch Secretary Sandy Nicholl was able to report that UNISON members will be balloting for strike action.
Secondly, the solidarity speaker from the students union said that, whilst they had respected the confidentiality of the process hitherto, if the appeal was not upheld they would provide full details to the student body. Student solidarity could be vital.
It is vitally important in cases such as this (of which I fear there will be more) that our response as workers is not limited to what seems to be legally or procedurally possible. If we want justice we must be prepared to fight for what is right.
SOAS need to understand that if they do not deliver justice for Stalin they will attract a new name as the Shabby Organisation Attacking Staff...
There was an impressive turnout given that the appeal was - unfortunately from a trade union point of view - taking place during the academic holidays. The strong showing reflected the strength of feeling about this case.
It is to be hoped that the SOAS appeal panel will see sense and reinstate Stalin. However speakers with knowledge of the organisation did not encourage optimism on this point.
I was therefore very pleased by two things that I heard at the lunchtime rally. First, UNISON Branch Secretary Sandy Nicholl was able to report that UNISON members will be balloting for strike action.
Secondly, the solidarity speaker from the students union said that, whilst they had respected the confidentiality of the process hitherto, if the appeal was not upheld they would provide full details to the student body. Student solidarity could be vital.
It is vitally important in cases such as this (of which I fear there will be more) that our response as workers is not limited to what seems to be legally or procedurally possible. If we want justice we must be prepared to fight for what is right.
SOAS need to understand that if they do not deliver justice for Stalin they will attract a new name as the Shabby Organisation Attacking Staff...
Half measures for local government workers
Certain regular readers (Sid and Doris Local-Government-Employers) will understand if they are not swamped with gratitude for the offer of the princely sum of 0.5% as a pay increase from 1 April.
This is how they justify it;
"Our primary consideration in making an offer has once again been affordability. The recession continues to have a major impact on council finances: demands on council services are increasing; income from items such as fees and charges is decreasing; and the third year of the current three-year CSR settlement is no longer guaranteed. While the latter relates to 2010/11, it is a major factor in assessing what is affordable for 2009/10. In addition councils have had to absorb the cost of the 0.30% arbitration award at a time when budgets for the coming year have already been set.
The offer also reflects the wider context of redundancies, pay freezes and even pay cuts for workers across the economy and it is important that local authorities are sensitive to public perception of the position of public sector workers. Our offer is therefore limited not only by what we can afford but what we can justify to council tax payers.
With all that in mind, the employers are prepared to make an offer of 0.50% on all points in the national pay spine. In the light of the increasingly uncertain economic climate, and in an effort to secure a relatively quick settlement, the employers have decided that this offer should be time-limited. Accordingly, if a negotiated settlement has not been reached by 1 June 2009, the offer will be withdrawn and there would be no increase this year. The employers would not implement the offer unilaterally in the absence of an agreement."
So - a measley offer and a deadline for acceptance. With a mastery of understatement UNISON's official response describes the offer as "dismaying" - the Executive of the Trade Union Side meet tomorrow to consider a response.
The Government's preferred measure of inflation - the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose to 3.2% in February and though that may be a blip in a downward trend it puts the offer of 0.5% into perspective. I understand that local Councils have generally budgeted for between 1.5% and 2.5% for a pay award for 2009/10 so there is no excuse for an offer so low to a low paid workforce whose pay has been falling behind prices for several years.
This is how they justify it;
"Our primary consideration in making an offer has once again been affordability. The recession continues to have a major impact on council finances: demands on council services are increasing; income from items such as fees and charges is decreasing; and the third year of the current three-year CSR settlement is no longer guaranteed. While the latter relates to 2010/11, it is a major factor in assessing what is affordable for 2009/10. In addition councils have had to absorb the cost of the 0.30% arbitration award at a time when budgets for the coming year have already been set.
The offer also reflects the wider context of redundancies, pay freezes and even pay cuts for workers across the economy and it is important that local authorities are sensitive to public perception of the position of public sector workers. Our offer is therefore limited not only by what we can afford but what we can justify to council tax payers.
With all that in mind, the employers are prepared to make an offer of 0.50% on all points in the national pay spine. In the light of the increasingly uncertain economic climate, and in an effort to secure a relatively quick settlement, the employers have decided that this offer should be time-limited. Accordingly, if a negotiated settlement has not been reached by 1 June 2009, the offer will be withdrawn and there would be no increase this year. The employers would not implement the offer unilaterally in the absence of an agreement."
So - a measley offer and a deadline for acceptance. With a mastery of understatement UNISON's official response describes the offer as "dismaying" - the Executive of the Trade Union Side meet tomorrow to consider a response.
The Government's preferred measure of inflation - the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose to 3.2% in February and though that may be a blip in a downward trend it puts the offer of 0.5% into perspective. I understand that local Councils have generally budgeted for between 1.5% and 2.5% for a pay award for 2009/10 so there is no excuse for an offer so low to a low paid workforce whose pay has been falling behind prices for several years.
Flexibility?
Flexibility is a much trumpeted virtue, but not always a good thing.
Changes today to the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievances (to which tribunals can refer in employment tribunal cases) accompany the removal of the (only recently enacted) Statutory Dispute Resolution Procedures set out in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002. The new Code is online here.
The statutory procedures were unpopular with employers because they were "inflexible" but when it comes to (for example) the threat that a worker may loses their job then I quite like a bit of inflexibilty.
To take just one small example of the way in which the new Code works against our interests, the previous Code - at paragraph 42 - said that before disciplining a union representative the case "should" be discussed with a senior representative or full time official. The new Code - at paragraph 29 - merely says that this advisable. Those of us who have the old (or stronger) language in collectively agreed disciplinary procedures (which are incorporated into the contracts of employment of our members) should hold on to what we have.
Another example of the weakening of employee protection in the new Code is that the recommendation that "so far as reasonably practicable" appeals should be heard by a manager more senior than the manager who imposed a disciplinary sanction - at paragraph 46 of the old Code has been lost from paragraph 26 of the new Code.
This is a clear example of flexibility being offered to employers to the detriment of workers' rights - and the timing, in the midst of a recession, could hardly be worse.
A modest example of an alternative and more worker-friendly type of "flexibility" is provided by the extension of the "right to request" flexible working to all parents of under 16s. I'll blog more on that later.
Changes today to the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievances (to which tribunals can refer in employment tribunal cases) accompany the removal of the (only recently enacted) Statutory Dispute Resolution Procedures set out in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002. The new Code is online here.
The statutory procedures were unpopular with employers because they were "inflexible" but when it comes to (for example) the threat that a worker may loses their job then I quite like a bit of inflexibilty.
To take just one small example of the way in which the new Code works against our interests, the previous Code - at paragraph 42 - said that before disciplining a union representative the case "should" be discussed with a senior representative or full time official. The new Code - at paragraph 29 - merely says that this advisable. Those of us who have the old (or stronger) language in collectively agreed disciplinary procedures (which are incorporated into the contracts of employment of our members) should hold on to what we have.
Another example of the weakening of employee protection in the new Code is that the recommendation that "so far as reasonably practicable" appeals should be heard by a manager more senior than the manager who imposed a disciplinary sanction - at paragraph 46 of the old Code has been lost from paragraph 26 of the new Code.
This is a clear example of flexibility being offered to employers to the detriment of workers' rights - and the timing, in the midst of a recession, could hardly be worse.
A modest example of an alternative and more worker-friendly type of "flexibility" is provided by the extension of the "right to request" flexible working to all parents of under 16s. I'll blog more on that later.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Job Done or Jobs Done For?
If I was any good with the relevant software I would illustrate this blog post with images of trade union leaders as cheerleaders (although now that I have that image in my head I will regret having thought of it for many years!)
The Unions Together blog declare - of the result of the G20 "Job Done - Now Let's Get to Work" - this seems to me to be taking rose tinted spectacles into a whole new dimension.
Unions Together is a "trading name" of TULO (The Trade Union Labour Organisation - the coordinating body for Labour Party affiliated trade unions).
If what TULO was for was to encourage trade unionists to feel good about the Labour Government then this sort of positive spin would make sense.
If the point of TULO was to campaign for trade union policies within and beyond the Labour Party then it would be difficult to see why we would want to talk up the outcome of the G20.
It offers precisely nothing to the Visteon workers, nor to those losing their jobs at Bombardier.
I am one of those dinosaurs who still thinks we could get some good out of our affiliation to our Party - but not if we are simply cheerleaders for Gordon Brown.
No job was done for us at the G20 and the work to which we must now turn is the campaign for progressive policies in the interests of working people.
The Unions Together blog declare - of the result of the G20 "Job Done - Now Let's Get to Work" - this seems to me to be taking rose tinted spectacles into a whole new dimension.
Unions Together is a "trading name" of TULO (The Trade Union Labour Organisation - the coordinating body for Labour Party affiliated trade unions).
If what TULO was for was to encourage trade unionists to feel good about the Labour Government then this sort of positive spin would make sense.
If the point of TULO was to campaign for trade union policies within and beyond the Labour Party then it would be difficult to see why we would want to talk up the outcome of the G20.
It offers precisely nothing to the Visteon workers, nor to those losing their jobs at Bombardier.
I am one of those dinosaurs who still thinks we could get some good out of our affiliation to our Party - but not if we are simply cheerleaders for Gordon Brown.
No job was done for us at the G20 and the work to which we must now turn is the campaign for progressive policies in the interests of working people.
Support the Visteon workers
The G20 seems to have failed to provide the fiscal boost that the world economy needs to combat recession.
In a capitalist economy this sort of slump arises when firms cannot find buyers for goods and services - a massive increase in public spending (or reductions in taxation on working people) can provide a stimulus to demand.
What we've had thus far is not enough and now it appears we are not to get any more. We need to redouble our efforts to put pressure on the Government to meet our demands.
More workers can now anticipate being treated like the Visteon workforce - summarily dismissed because of an economic crisis not of their making. I hope that others will follow their sensible example and occupy the workplace rather than meekly accept their fate. Workers in Enfield, Basildon and Belfast are in occupation now.
The right wing press are trying hard to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers in what seems to be a bizarre attempt to blame public sector workers for the crisis. UNISON members and branches need to rush messages of solidarity to the Visteon workers.
According to Indymedia the contact information is;
stevehart@unitetheunion.com (for Enfield)
dmcmurray@unitetheunion.com (for Belfast)
Update on Monday - it seems that legal action is not being taken against the occupation at this stage and that the company is negotiating. Good.
In a capitalist economy this sort of slump arises when firms cannot find buyers for goods and services - a massive increase in public spending (or reductions in taxation on working people) can provide a stimulus to demand.
What we've had thus far is not enough and now it appears we are not to get any more. We need to redouble our efforts to put pressure on the Government to meet our demands.
More workers can now anticipate being treated like the Visteon workforce - summarily dismissed because of an economic crisis not of their making. I hope that others will follow their sensible example and occupy the workplace rather than meekly accept their fate. Workers in Enfield, Basildon and Belfast are in occupation now.
The right wing press are trying hard to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers in what seems to be a bizarre attempt to blame public sector workers for the crisis. UNISON members and branches need to rush messages of solidarity to the Visteon workers.
According to Indymedia the contact information is;
stevehart@unitetheunion.com (for Enfield)
dmcmurray@unitetheunion.com (for Belfast)
Update on Monday - it seems that legal action is not being taken against the occupation at this stage and that the company is negotiating. Good.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Vote for Me (please)
It's election time in UNISON - we are voting for our National Executive Council (NEC) with ballot papers due to go out straight after the Easter weekend.
I am seeking re-election to the NEC to represent the Greater London Region and am standing alongside a diverse and excellent slate of candidates under the banner of "Reclaim the Union."
Why are we standing? Well...
For years Governments have claimed that we do not have enough money for public services. Yet trillions are found to bail out bankers whose greed has caused economic chaos and who still claim huge bonuses and pensions.
Public Sector workers must not pay through attacks on our jobs, pay and pensions.
We need a fighting leadership that demands the bankers and bosses pay for their crisis. UNISON's current leadership put their relationship with Labour before the interests of our members.
The candidates of the left come from different backgrounds but we share one aim - to put members first and reclaim our union. The following demands are as set out on our campaign postcard (which includes a very recent and entirely accurate photograph of your humble blogger);
UNISON is a good trade union which it is an honour to represent on the NEC. It could, however, be a great trade union if we could liberate it from the unfortunate mix of lethargic timidity and timid lethargy which has us in its thrall.
I sometimes get a bit of stick for associating with the left in the Union (indeed if I had a pound for every time I had been told that if only I had not chosen to be a "standard bearer for the Trots" great things could have come to me in our Union I would have several quid...) I would however much rather stand alongside socialist comrades (with whom I may have all sorts of disagreements but whose commitment is beyond question) than apologists for a Government which attacks us and a leadership which fails to fight back.
This year's NEC elections offer us a chance to change UNISON for the better. I hope we take it.
For the attention of the Mabledon Place blogwatch squad I must point out that no UNISON resources are used for posts relating to internal union elections (though I must also add my disappointment not to receive complaints about this blog - it is almost enough to make me feel hurt and ignored...)
I am seeking re-election to the NEC to represent the Greater London Region and am standing alongside a diverse and excellent slate of candidates under the banner of "Reclaim the Union."
Why are we standing? Well...
For years Governments have claimed that we do not have enough money for public services. Yet trillions are found to bail out bankers whose greed has caused economic chaos and who still claim huge bonuses and pensions.
Public Sector workers must not pay through attacks on our jobs, pay and pensions.
We need a fighting leadership that demands the bankers and bosses pay for their crisis. UNISON's current leadership put their relationship with Labour before the interests of our members.
The candidates of the left come from different backgrounds but we share one aim - to put members first and reclaim our union. The following demands are as set out on our campaign postcard (which includes a very recent and entirely accurate photograph of your humble blogger);
- No job losses;
- No pay cuts;
- Save the NHS;
- Equal Pay now;
- Public Services Not Private Profit;
- Stop the BNP - no to racism;
- Defend our pensions;
- Stop the witch hunts;
- Welfare not Warfare;
- No UNISON subs for New Labour Cuts.
UNISON is a good trade union which it is an honour to represent on the NEC. It could, however, be a great trade union if we could liberate it from the unfortunate mix of lethargic timidity and timid lethargy which has us in its thrall.
I sometimes get a bit of stick for associating with the left in the Union (indeed if I had a pound for every time I had been told that if only I had not chosen to be a "standard bearer for the Trots" great things could have come to me in our Union I would have several quid...) I would however much rather stand alongside socialist comrades (with whom I may have all sorts of disagreements but whose commitment is beyond question) than apologists for a Government which attacks us and a leadership which fails to fight back.
This year's NEC elections offer us a chance to change UNISON for the better. I hope we take it.
For the attention of the Mabledon Place blogwatch squad I must point out that no UNISON resources are used for posts relating to internal union elections (though I must also add my disappointment not to receive complaints about this blog - it is almost enough to make me feel hurt and ignored...)
Good News
At the risk of shocking regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger by rambling away from my normal obsessions I can't resist congratulating the campaigners who have won us a National Park for the South Downs.
The most recent bit of leafletting my kids and I did for our excellent Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Pavilion was in support of the National Park. It's good to see some positive protection for the most beautiful countryside - and is a reminder to take some time off over Easter to enjoy it.
The most recent bit of leafletting my kids and I did for our excellent Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Pavilion was in support of the National Park. It's good to see some positive protection for the most beautiful countryside - and is a reminder to take some time off over Easter to enjoy it.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Ten Years of the Minimum Wage
Now that it is well after noon on April Fool’s Day it makes sense to record (and applaud) the tenth anniversary of the Minimum Wage. This was a victory for one of our “former partner unions” in particular and for a former UNISON General Secretary. I had my differences with Rodney Bickerstaffe but I applaud his commitment to the fight against low pay.
Ten years ago I was part of a local demonstration outside a workplace previously employing workers below the Minimum Wage. We protested outside a workplace owned by the company who had (back then) been attacking the Hillingdon Hospital strikers.
I was pleased that a Labour Government introduced a Minimum Wage because (unlike some) I have been a Labour Party member all my life. I come from a Labour family. I cannot hide my disappointment about the limited gains which we have to show for the last twelve years of Labour Government, but I do think it is important to record what has been achieved.
In addition to the Minimum Wage, I particularly like subsections 4 and 5 of section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and I bet that most other rank and file union activists find these amongst the most important gains of the years of ostensibly “Labour” government.
What do you think has been the most useful outcome of these years of “Labour” Government?
Ten years ago I was part of a local demonstration outside a workplace previously employing workers below the Minimum Wage. We protested outside a workplace owned by the company who had (back then) been attacking the Hillingdon Hospital strikers.
I was pleased that a Labour Government introduced a Minimum Wage because (unlike some) I have been a Labour Party member all my life. I come from a Labour family. I cannot hide my disappointment about the limited gains which we have to show for the last twelve years of Labour Government, but I do think it is important to record what has been achieved.
In addition to the Minimum Wage, I particularly like subsections 4 and 5 of section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and I bet that most other rank and file union activists find these amongst the most important gains of the years of ostensibly “Labour” government.
What do you think has been the most useful outcome of these years of “Labour” Government?
Monday, March 30, 2009
UNISON and the Peoples' Charter
I read with interest that both the South West and North West Regional TUCs have endorsed the Peoples’ Charter.
I am particularly intrigued to read that UNISON delegates in the South West opposed this, although UNISON nationally has not yet taken any policy position on the Charter, which has attracted support from (amongst others) the Morning Star. (It has been pointed out to me in comments on this post that the earlier wording of this post could have been read as suggesting that I thought our delegates in the North West had opposed the Charter. I apologise to anyone who was misled by this).
As I have argued here previously, the Charter largely reflects UNISON policies. More to the point, it is arguably less ambitious and less left-wing than the policy platform for Saturday’s “Put People First” demonstration, to which UNISON signed up wholeheartedly. That’s why I have signed the Charter.
There is no good reason why any UNISON official should oppose the Peoples’ Charter. The only arguments which I have been offered against the Charter are economically illiterate rehashes of 1940s Tory arguments against the welfare state (“we can’t afford to nationalise the banks because it will threaten our pensions” – d’oh!)
If there is motivation within in our movement to oppose the Peoples’ Charter it will arise from a misperception that the Charter is intended to pave the way for socialists to leave the Labour Party. It may well be that some of those who support the Charter wish this to happen, but socialists within the Labour Party are not so daft! Indeed it is Labour Party activists who are amongst the most active in promoting the Charter.
The Charter’s difficult and prolonged genesis (which was less inclusive than it might have been) may have given some hostages to fortune, but any sensible activist will read what the Charter actually says and make their mind up on that basis.
Twenty years of trade unionism teaches me that it is quite possible to work alongside fellow trade unionists who aren’t Labour Party members without being tempted to leave the Party oneself.
19 of the 24 MPs who support the Charter are Labour MPs which strikes me as a persuasive argument that supporters of the Charter need to focus upon the Labour Party if we want to achieve our objectives. However, I completely understand that many good socialists are outside the Labour Party and yet still want our trade union movement to fight for the interests of our members.
The Peoples Charter is an opportunity for UNISON’s leadership to live up to the best of our Union and to lead our movement. I hope that we will rise to this challenge. The opposition to the Charter within our movement seems to reflect the least intelligent elements of right wing loyalty to the Government before our members.
I am particularly intrigued to read that UNISON delegates in the South West opposed this, although UNISON nationally has not yet taken any policy position on the Charter, which has attracted support from (amongst others) the Morning Star. (It has been pointed out to me in comments on this post that the earlier wording of this post could have been read as suggesting that I thought our delegates in the North West had opposed the Charter. I apologise to anyone who was misled by this).
As I have argued here previously, the Charter largely reflects UNISON policies. More to the point, it is arguably less ambitious and less left-wing than the policy platform for Saturday’s “Put People First” demonstration, to which UNISON signed up wholeheartedly. That’s why I have signed the Charter.
There is no good reason why any UNISON official should oppose the Peoples’ Charter. The only arguments which I have been offered against the Charter are economically illiterate rehashes of 1940s Tory arguments against the welfare state (“we can’t afford to nationalise the banks because it will threaten our pensions” – d’oh!)
If there is motivation within in our movement to oppose the Peoples’ Charter it will arise from a misperception that the Charter is intended to pave the way for socialists to leave the Labour Party. It may well be that some of those who support the Charter wish this to happen, but socialists within the Labour Party are not so daft! Indeed it is Labour Party activists who are amongst the most active in promoting the Charter.
The Charter’s difficult and prolonged genesis (which was less inclusive than it might have been) may have given some hostages to fortune, but any sensible activist will read what the Charter actually says and make their mind up on that basis.
Twenty years of trade unionism teaches me that it is quite possible to work alongside fellow trade unionists who aren’t Labour Party members without being tempted to leave the Party oneself.
19 of the 24 MPs who support the Charter are Labour MPs which strikes me as a persuasive argument that supporters of the Charter need to focus upon the Labour Party if we want to achieve our objectives. However, I completely understand that many good socialists are outside the Labour Party and yet still want our trade union movement to fight for the interests of our members.
The Peoples Charter is an opportunity for UNISON’s leadership to live up to the best of our Union and to lead our movement. I hope that we will rise to this challenge. The opposition to the Charter within our movement seems to reflect the least intelligent elements of right wing loyalty to the Government before our members.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Put People First - what next?
Tired children and a very heavy banner combined to provide an excuse for myself and a couple of other comrades to leave fairly early from the excellent People Not Profit demonstration yesterday in Central London. It was great to be there though!
This was a consciously anti-capitalist protest, and was matched by protests elsewhere in Europe. As Le Monde points out the demands of yesterday’s demonstration were wide-ranging. Not only does this differentiate the demonstration from most mass London demonstrations which are generally built around a single unifying demand, it also demonstrates that the supporters of the demonstration are – in effect – already supporting the, if anything less ambitious, demands expressed in the recently launched Peoples Charter.
The alliance which was built around yesterday’s demonstration has an obligation to continue to work together in the face of an economic crisis which has barely begun to inflict its damage upon our communities, jobs and pensions. We have to seize this moment, when the prophets of free market liberalism have been widely discredited, to articulate an alternative which reflects the interests of working people.
As some UNISON activists were saying in today’s Observer, trade unionists also need to prepare ourselves to take whatever action is necessary to protect ourselves from the coming attacks. The alliances built for yesterday's demonstration will be invaluable - and the Peoples Charter may be a useful tool with which to work.
This was a consciously anti-capitalist protest, and was matched by protests elsewhere in Europe. As Le Monde points out the demands of yesterday’s demonstration were wide-ranging. Not only does this differentiate the demonstration from most mass London demonstrations which are generally built around a single unifying demand, it also demonstrates that the supporters of the demonstration are – in effect – already supporting the, if anything less ambitious, demands expressed in the recently launched Peoples Charter.
The alliance which was built around yesterday’s demonstration has an obligation to continue to work together in the face of an economic crisis which has barely begun to inflict its damage upon our communities, jobs and pensions. We have to seize this moment, when the prophets of free market liberalism have been widely discredited, to articulate an alternative which reflects the interests of working people.
As some UNISON activists were saying in today’s Observer, trade unionists also need to prepare ourselves to take whatever action is necessary to protect ourselves from the coming attacks. The alliances built for yesterday's demonstration will be invaluable - and the Peoples Charter may be a useful tool with which to work.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Savaged by a dead sheep
Oh dear, I appear to have awoken the ire of the self-appointed spokespeople for all taxpayers by daring to defend the Local Government Pension Scheme and being (horror of horrors) a socialist.
With their wild-eyed right-wing co-thinkers at the Evening Standard busily trying to turn private sector and public sector workers against each other over the question of pensions, the TPA reveal their motives by describing taxpayers in such a way as to exclude public sector workers.
In fact of course public sector workers on PAYE are regular taxpayers just like other workers. The Standard stoops to a new low in the devaluing of an important word by describing the difference between pension provision in the public and private sectors as “apartheid”.
It is absurd to blame public sector workers for the decline of pension provision in the private sector. The fault lies with private sector employers and the reason that they have been able to get away with it says a lot about the relative weakness of trade union organisation in the private sector.
The crocodile tears of the Evening Standard would be plausible if I could remember a single time that paper has supported workers organising to better their lives. The idea that our pension schemes in the public sector cannot be afforded is nonsense. Economic output has nearly doubled in the UK in the last thirty years.
If as a society we chose to prioritise decent defined benefit pension schemes for all workers we could do so. We should. We don’t have to accept that this economic crisis means working people must pay for the crisis – instead this could be the occasion for us to articulate an alternative and do something about it.
With their wild-eyed right-wing co-thinkers at the Evening Standard busily trying to turn private sector and public sector workers against each other over the question of pensions, the TPA reveal their motives by describing taxpayers in such a way as to exclude public sector workers.
In fact of course public sector workers on PAYE are regular taxpayers just like other workers. The Standard stoops to a new low in the devaluing of an important word by describing the difference between pension provision in the public and private sectors as “apartheid”.
It is absurd to blame public sector workers for the decline of pension provision in the private sector. The fault lies with private sector employers and the reason that they have been able to get away with it says a lot about the relative weakness of trade union organisation in the private sector.
The crocodile tears of the Evening Standard would be plausible if I could remember a single time that paper has supported workers organising to better their lives. The idea that our pension schemes in the public sector cannot be afforded is nonsense. Economic output has nearly doubled in the UK in the last thirty years.
If as a society we chose to prioritise decent defined benefit pension schemes for all workers we could do so. We should. We don’t have to accept that this economic crisis means working people must pay for the crisis – instead this could be the occasion for us to articulate an alternative and do something about it.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Our pensions should be Standard!
I don’t often buy the Evening Standard as I find that most commercially available toilet paper is both softer and more absorbent.
Today however, the Standard is presenting press releases from the Taxpayers Alliance (a.k.a. the Tory candidates’ training ground) as an “exclusive” report on deficits in local authority pension funds.
The range of inaccuracies in the “reporting” from this “newspaper” will no doubt be exposed better by those with more expertise in this area. (I don’t think my GMB comrades will mind my pointing out that the Standard is wrong to describe their union as the “main local government union” for example!)
It is certainly astonishing that (presumably) well paid columnists think that police officers or teachers are paid out of the local government pension scheme (if public sector workers did as bad a job as Professor Philip Booth did in writing that article we would be dealt with under a capability procedure!)
The point I want to make here is that this report is an indication of the attacks which we can now expect upon all public sector pension schemes. The pensions of the highest paid are an easy target (and we might not worry to much if these were limited) but the reality of this is that the real attack is upon the pensions of the hundreds of thousands of local government workers who will get a small pension - not the small number who may get a hundred thousand.
We need now to prepare for the political and industrial action which will be required to protect our public service pensions, which should be a benchmark for workers in the rest of the economy and not an exception to be pilloried by Tory journalists.
If capitalism cannot afford decent pensions then the answer is not to get rid of decent pensions but to get rid of capitalism (sorry if that sounds a bit Dave Spart but it also sounds right).
Today however, the Standard is presenting press releases from the Taxpayers Alliance (a.k.a. the Tory candidates’ training ground) as an “exclusive” report on deficits in local authority pension funds.
The range of inaccuracies in the “reporting” from this “newspaper” will no doubt be exposed better by those with more expertise in this area. (I don’t think my GMB comrades will mind my pointing out that the Standard is wrong to describe their union as the “main local government union” for example!)
It is certainly astonishing that (presumably) well paid columnists think that police officers or teachers are paid out of the local government pension scheme (if public sector workers did as bad a job as Professor Philip Booth did in writing that article we would be dealt with under a capability procedure!)
The point I want to make here is that this report is an indication of the attacks which we can now expect upon all public sector pension schemes. The pensions of the highest paid are an easy target (and we might not worry to much if these were limited) but the reality of this is that the real attack is upon the pensions of the hundreds of thousands of local government workers who will get a small pension - not the small number who may get a hundred thousand.
We need now to prepare for the political and industrial action which will be required to protect our public service pensions, which should be a benchmark for workers in the rest of the economy and not an exception to be pilloried by Tory journalists.
If capitalism cannot afford decent pensions then the answer is not to get rid of decent pensions but to get rid of capitalism (sorry if that sounds a bit Dave Spart but it also sounds right).
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Rules for UNISON delegates
Whilst I realise that this may be fatal for attempts to establish this blog’s reputation as the premier home of cutting edge humour and excitement, I felt I should say something about some of the 21 Rule Amendments which are on the agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference.
Please have your UNISON Rule Book to hand…
I won’t blog now in detail about the Rule Amendments ruled out of order but will return to that topic, particularly because the failure of the Rule Amendment which would have created the possibility of Sector Conferences to make it onto the agenda creates a real dilemma about a democratic deficit that I am afraid will otherwise be created by the Rule Amendments implementing the devolution of collective bargaining responsibility from Service Groups to Sectors.
Looking at what we do have, the first thing upon which to remark is that we may have a full afternoon of debating the Rules. I realise that not everyone will view this as an appealing prospect. There are however some important discussions to have and decisions to make.
Rule Amendment 17 may be among the most important since it seeks to tighten up the Rules that permit us to exclude members of far right political parties from membership. However the wording of the amendment is, on legal advice, a little opaque permitting us to exclude or expel “any individual who gives encouragement to or participates in the activities of a political party the objectives of which are contrary to the objectives of UNISON in particular those equality provisions set out in Rules A3 and/or B1.2 and/or B1.3 of the UNISON Rule Book.” I would have preferred a straightforward ban on BNP members being UNISON members. The counter argument was the fringe parties of the far right frequently change their names, and that the BNP is not the only such organisation so that a wider form of words is required.
The associated Rule Amendment 5 which deals with arrangements when members are excluded, removes the routine right of Branch Committees to refuse membership applications currently in Rule C.5.2 (clause (b)). Although that provision may have become a dead letter I think that this change will need some explanation, as will the arrangements for branches to consider representations from anyone we consider ineligible for membership.
Rule Amendment 18 will probably be uncontroversial. It implements a one off increase in the hourly rate of pay which we define as “low pay” for the purposes of Reserved low pay seats under our Rules from £7.49 to £8.50. Thereafter the amount will continue to increase in line with pay inflation. Attempts to clarify the meaning of hourly rate in the Rule Book were abandoned at an earlier stage in favour of the expectation that the National Executive Council will use its powers to interpret the Rule Book to arrive at a sensible interpretation (this is of particular concern in the Greater London Region where, in many cases, “London Weighting” payments are now rolled up into the hourly rate).
Rule Amendment 15 implements a prohibition on a single member holding more than one of the “top three” Branch Officer positions (Secretary, Treasurer and Chair) – although this may cause some problems in the smallest branches it does make sense that these different roles should be held by different individuals from the point of view of both democratic and financial accountability.
New Rule G8 brings in further change for branches as it introduces “Equality Representatives” into our Rules. I would particularly welcome the views of activists within UNISON’s self-organised groups on these proposals since self-organisation by members experiencing particular forms of oppression (whether in the workplace or the wider society) is core to UNISON and has been ever since 1993.
Most of the remaining Rule Amendments deal with different aspects of the Review of Structures, proposing the creation of new Service Groups and changes to the definitions of Service Groups and Sectors. Although in debate at the NEC we wrote back into the role of Service Groups that they should “oversee” the work of sectors I am nevertheless concerned that the devolution of autonomy to sectors in the absence of clear arrangements for collective democratic accountability of Sector Committees to a representative body of delegates would weaken rather than strengthen our Union.
New Rule D 2.9.13 clarifies the power of the NEC to issue guidelines on the democratic accountability of sectors, and since it is within Rule D.2.9 and therefore subject to the caveats surrounding the general power of the NEC under Rule D.2.1 (which subjects the NEC to “the policy of the Union as laid down by the National Delegate Conference”) it does make clear that Conference could issue instructions to the NEC about such guidelines. Whether or not the amendments to Rules D 3.1.4 and D 3.7 are agreed this year, Conference could therefore return to the question of the democratic accountability of Sectors.
New Rule D.2.9.6 is as much as is on offer to respond to the decision of 2007 Conference that the NEC should “ensure democratic accountability” in “cross service group working.” All it does is clarify that the NEC has the power to “oversee cross service group work” but, as with Rule D.2.9.13 this is at least clearly subject to Conference policy, so that a future National Delegate Conference could give the NEC some instructions about (for example) the role, composition and accountability of the Service Group Liaison Committee.
For those still reading this far down the post you now know what we have to look forward to on the Thursday afternoon of National Delegate Conference – this year won’t be the year to find other activities at that point.
Please have your UNISON Rule Book to hand…
I won’t blog now in detail about the Rule Amendments ruled out of order but will return to that topic, particularly because the failure of the Rule Amendment which would have created the possibility of Sector Conferences to make it onto the agenda creates a real dilemma about a democratic deficit that I am afraid will otherwise be created by the Rule Amendments implementing the devolution of collective bargaining responsibility from Service Groups to Sectors.
Looking at what we do have, the first thing upon which to remark is that we may have a full afternoon of debating the Rules. I realise that not everyone will view this as an appealing prospect. There are however some important discussions to have and decisions to make.
Rule Amendment 17 may be among the most important since it seeks to tighten up the Rules that permit us to exclude members of far right political parties from membership. However the wording of the amendment is, on legal advice, a little opaque permitting us to exclude or expel “any individual who gives encouragement to or participates in the activities of a political party the objectives of which are contrary to the objectives of UNISON in particular those equality provisions set out in Rules A3 and/or B1.2 and/or B1.3 of the UNISON Rule Book.” I would have preferred a straightforward ban on BNP members being UNISON members. The counter argument was the fringe parties of the far right frequently change their names, and that the BNP is not the only such organisation so that a wider form of words is required.
The associated Rule Amendment 5 which deals with arrangements when members are excluded, removes the routine right of Branch Committees to refuse membership applications currently in Rule C.5.2 (clause (b)). Although that provision may have become a dead letter I think that this change will need some explanation, as will the arrangements for branches to consider representations from anyone we consider ineligible for membership.
Rule Amendment 18 will probably be uncontroversial. It implements a one off increase in the hourly rate of pay which we define as “low pay” for the purposes of Reserved low pay seats under our Rules from £7.49 to £8.50. Thereafter the amount will continue to increase in line with pay inflation. Attempts to clarify the meaning of hourly rate in the Rule Book were abandoned at an earlier stage in favour of the expectation that the National Executive Council will use its powers to interpret the Rule Book to arrive at a sensible interpretation (this is of particular concern in the Greater London Region where, in many cases, “London Weighting” payments are now rolled up into the hourly rate).
Rule Amendment 15 implements a prohibition on a single member holding more than one of the “top three” Branch Officer positions (Secretary, Treasurer and Chair) – although this may cause some problems in the smallest branches it does make sense that these different roles should be held by different individuals from the point of view of both democratic and financial accountability.
New Rule G8 brings in further change for branches as it introduces “Equality Representatives” into our Rules. I would particularly welcome the views of activists within UNISON’s self-organised groups on these proposals since self-organisation by members experiencing particular forms of oppression (whether in the workplace or the wider society) is core to UNISON and has been ever since 1993.
Most of the remaining Rule Amendments deal with different aspects of the Review of Structures, proposing the creation of new Service Groups and changes to the definitions of Service Groups and Sectors. Although in debate at the NEC we wrote back into the role of Service Groups that they should “oversee” the work of sectors I am nevertheless concerned that the devolution of autonomy to sectors in the absence of clear arrangements for collective democratic accountability of Sector Committees to a representative body of delegates would weaken rather than strengthen our Union.
New Rule D 2.9.13 clarifies the power of the NEC to issue guidelines on the democratic accountability of sectors, and since it is within Rule D.2.9 and therefore subject to the caveats surrounding the general power of the NEC under Rule D.2.1 (which subjects the NEC to “the policy of the Union as laid down by the National Delegate Conference”) it does make clear that Conference could issue instructions to the NEC about such guidelines. Whether or not the amendments to Rules D 3.1.4 and D 3.7 are agreed this year, Conference could therefore return to the question of the democratic accountability of Sectors.
New Rule D.2.9.6 is as much as is on offer to respond to the decision of 2007 Conference that the NEC should “ensure democratic accountability” in “cross service group working.” All it does is clarify that the NEC has the power to “oversee cross service group work” but, as with Rule D.2.9.13 this is at least clearly subject to Conference policy, so that a future National Delegate Conference could give the NEC some instructions about (for example) the role, composition and accountability of the Service Group Liaison Committee.
For those still reading this far down the post you now know what we have to look forward to on the Thursday afternoon of National Delegate Conference – this year won’t be the year to find other activities at that point.
What priorities for UNISON Conference?
Attentive observers of our trade union (Sid and Doris Conference-Anorak) will have spent their weekend poring over the recently published Preliminary Agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference.
133 Policy Motions and 21 Rule Amendments have made it onto the agenda, from which 52 Policy Motions and 37 Rule Amendments have been ruled out of order. The next step in constructing the Conference agenda is the prioritisation process about which I have blogged before (ad nauseam). The gist of the previous posts for those who haven’t clicked those links is that branches need to consider which motions on the Preliminary Agenda to support for prioritisation bearing in mind that only prioritised motions can be debated at Conference.
I have only just started thinking about what we should be prioritising, but a few things do stand out. A number of motions deal in different ways with the problems posed by anti-working class Government policies and the shortcomings of UNISON’s relationship with the Labour Party from the point of view of our members.
The motion agreed at National Black Members’ Conference on the Labour Government and the Black Community appears on the Conference Agenda as Motion 102 (and also 103) – this makes the persuasive point that the current government has lost its way and that our Party is no longer a party for the working class and the vulnerable within our society, and commits the Union to campaign against the misuse of stop and search and anti-terror laws.
There are a number of good motions on the Economic Crisis, including Motion 56 and Motion 28 which points out that the threats posed to the viability of the Private Finance Initiative by the financial crisis and its knock-on effects “have decisively strengthened the union's historic criticisms of a programme that has resulted since the early 1990s in the privatisation of our members' jobs, threatened their terms and conditions, and acted as a subsidy from the taxpayer to the profits of construction industry consortia.” The motion goes on to call for a campaign for privatised services to be brought back into the public sector.
A lengthy motion from the Greenwich Branch (Motion 41) makes a strong case for a change of direction for the Union; “The correct political position is one based on prioritising our members and the services we provide. This is clearly not taking place at present. A change of direction is necessary if we are to create a stronger UNISON able to protect our members, our jobs, our pensions from the coming attacks.” I also rather like Motion 62 from Glasgow which states that “there is an economic alternative to free market capitalism based on the common and democratic ownership of the major elements of the economy, namely democratic socialism.”
Amongst the International motions I have a (branch) vested interest in promoting interest in Motion 85 “Hands Off the People of Iran” but activists also need to consider which of the various motions on Palestine and Gaza to prioritise. The NEC motion will get prioritised as will the sharper (and shorter) South East Region motion but if the wording of other motions is to be available for a composite they too will need to have been prioritised.
True Conference anoraks will have an interest in Motion 7 on Fair Representation in Conference delegations which will enable Conference itself to have the debate which is otherwise simply an annual feature of the October meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee.
The critical question of our future structures – which will dominate the Rule Amendments on Thursday afternoon – is taken up in the NEC Motion (Motion 9) to which branches may wish to look to move amendments. Conference may of course prefer the approach of Motion 10 from Southwark which calls for adequate consultation on proposals for change. This is an area which requires further discussion ahead of Conference.
Finally (for now) I’ll plug Motion 11 from Lambeth which seeks to move the discussion of our future relationship with the GMB out of the TUC social and onto the floor of Conference.
I'll return to this topic later (but then if you were looking for fun you wouldn't be reading here!)
133 Policy Motions and 21 Rule Amendments have made it onto the agenda, from which 52 Policy Motions and 37 Rule Amendments have been ruled out of order. The next step in constructing the Conference agenda is the prioritisation process about which I have blogged before (ad nauseam). The gist of the previous posts for those who haven’t clicked those links is that branches need to consider which motions on the Preliminary Agenda to support for prioritisation bearing in mind that only prioritised motions can be debated at Conference.
I have only just started thinking about what we should be prioritising, but a few things do stand out. A number of motions deal in different ways with the problems posed by anti-working class Government policies and the shortcomings of UNISON’s relationship with the Labour Party from the point of view of our members.
The motion agreed at National Black Members’ Conference on the Labour Government and the Black Community appears on the Conference Agenda as Motion 102 (and also 103) – this makes the persuasive point that the current government has lost its way and that our Party is no longer a party for the working class and the vulnerable within our society, and commits the Union to campaign against the misuse of stop and search and anti-terror laws.
There are a number of good motions on the Economic Crisis, including Motion 56 and Motion 28 which points out that the threats posed to the viability of the Private Finance Initiative by the financial crisis and its knock-on effects “have decisively strengthened the union's historic criticisms of a programme that has resulted since the early 1990s in the privatisation of our members' jobs, threatened their terms and conditions, and acted as a subsidy from the taxpayer to the profits of construction industry consortia.” The motion goes on to call for a campaign for privatised services to be brought back into the public sector.
A lengthy motion from the Greenwich Branch (Motion 41) makes a strong case for a change of direction for the Union; “The correct political position is one based on prioritising our members and the services we provide. This is clearly not taking place at present. A change of direction is necessary if we are to create a stronger UNISON able to protect our members, our jobs, our pensions from the coming attacks.” I also rather like Motion 62 from Glasgow which states that “there is an economic alternative to free market capitalism based on the common and democratic ownership of the major elements of the economy, namely democratic socialism.”
Amongst the International motions I have a (branch) vested interest in promoting interest in Motion 85 “Hands Off the People of Iran” but activists also need to consider which of the various motions on Palestine and Gaza to prioritise. The NEC motion will get prioritised as will the sharper (and shorter) South East Region motion but if the wording of other motions is to be available for a composite they too will need to have been prioritised.
True Conference anoraks will have an interest in Motion 7 on Fair Representation in Conference delegations which will enable Conference itself to have the debate which is otherwise simply an annual feature of the October meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee.
The critical question of our future structures – which will dominate the Rule Amendments on Thursday afternoon – is taken up in the NEC Motion (Motion 9) to which branches may wish to look to move amendments. Conference may of course prefer the approach of Motion 10 from Southwark which calls for adequate consultation on proposals for change. This is an area which requires further discussion ahead of Conference.
Finally (for now) I’ll plug Motion 11 from Lambeth which seeks to move the discussion of our future relationship with the GMB out of the TUC social and onto the floor of Conference.
I'll return to this topic later (but then if you were looking for fun you wouldn't be reading here!)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Remembering other election results...
I remember the reports received within UNISON when our candidate was pipped at the post some eighteen months ago in the election for General Secretary of the Public Services International.
In spite of the best efforts of our candidate he was defeated and I remember the report back from our General Secretary to the NEC in October 2007. He complained that, amongst other things, the paid officials did not appear to have been neutral in the election and that this had disadvantaged our candidate - who was plainly the more leftwing of the two.
For some reason I was put in mind of this as I listened to the election results at today's Annual General Meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Council. The incumbent officers were re-elected and their opponents, for whom I would have voted if I had a vote as an NEC member, were defeated.
I will blog a fuller account of our Regional AGM shortly, but for the moment I congratulate Gloria, Conroy and their team and observe that the coming year will pose challenges the like of which we have not seen in some time. The test which we will face as a trade union in Greater London is whether we can mobilise and organise our members to face the onslaught of job losses in Greater London.
Those of us who believe in regular Regional Council meetings need to book in our diary the date of 4 June when we will be attending the next Regional Council meeting and the date of 22 April which is the deadline for motions to the Regional Council. If any Greater London UNISON branch has difficulties securing the attendance of delegates at the 4 June Regional Council they should ask their Regional Organiser for assistance - let me know if you have a problem.
In spite of the best efforts of our candidate he was defeated and I remember the report back from our General Secretary to the NEC in October 2007. He complained that, amongst other things, the paid officials did not appear to have been neutral in the election and that this had disadvantaged our candidate - who was plainly the more leftwing of the two.
For some reason I was put in mind of this as I listened to the election results at today's Annual General Meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Council. The incumbent officers were re-elected and their opponents, for whom I would have voted if I had a vote as an NEC member, were defeated.
I will blog a fuller account of our Regional AGM shortly, but for the moment I congratulate Gloria, Conroy and their team and observe that the coming year will pose challenges the like of which we have not seen in some time. The test which we will face as a trade union in Greater London is whether we can mobilise and organise our members to face the onslaught of job losses in Greater London.
Those of us who believe in regular Regional Council meetings need to book in our diary the date of 4 June when we will be attending the next Regional Council meeting and the date of 22 April which is the deadline for motions to the Regional Council. If any Greater London UNISON branch has difficulties securing the attendance of delegates at the 4 June Regional Council they should ask their Regional Organiser for assistance - let me know if you have a problem.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sign the Peoples Charter
As is so often the case I find myself persuaded by the arguments of John McDonnell.
The long awaited Peoples Charter is online now - and will be coming to a workplace and to a street stall near you soon. The organisers of this initiative hope for a million signatures in support of some elementary progressive political demands.
It's clear that the economic crisis which will be presented by some in our movement as a potent argument to moderate our demands ought rather to be seen as the occasion and opportunity to step up our demands for a change in the ideology of market worship which has been dominant for a generation.
In the absence of a credible left of centre political party to articulate the interests of working people an initiative by rank and file socialists, supported by a number of leading trade unionists and MPs has the potential to put socialist politics back on the agenda just now when we need them.
It seems to me that the Charter restates a number of UNISON policies and that therefore UNISON nationally should endorse this initiative. If you don't believe me about the UNISON policies you can check for yourself. This is the text of the summary of the Charter, with a few links to UNISON Conference policies...
A fair economy for a fairer Britain
Progressive taxes without loopholes or tax-havens. We must own and control the main banks. Guarantee all pensions, mortgages and savings. Tie pensions and benefits to wages. Give Pensioners free transport and heating. Increase the minimum wage..
More and better jobs
Protect existing jobs. Reduce hours, not pay, to create more jobs. Make a massive investment in new jobs, particularly in green technology, for our children's sake..
Decent homes for all
Create 3 million new publicly owned homes. Stop the repossessions. Control rents.
Save and improve our services
Energy, Telecommunications, Post, Water and Transport to be owned by all of us. Remove profit making from the NHS and schools. Support our public service staff..
For Fairness and Justice
Equality for all. Together against all racism and discrimination. Equal pay for women. End child poverty. Give young people a future. Free child and youth facilities, education and training for all. Repeal the anti-union laws to fight poverty and inequality..
A better future starts now
No more blood and money for war. Bring the troops home. No more £billions for nuclear weapons. We want massive investment for a greener, safer world. Get rid of the debt economy in Britain and cancel the debts of the poor of the planet.
The long awaited Peoples Charter is online now - and will be coming to a workplace and to a street stall near you soon. The organisers of this initiative hope for a million signatures in support of some elementary progressive political demands.
It's clear that the economic crisis which will be presented by some in our movement as a potent argument to moderate our demands ought rather to be seen as the occasion and opportunity to step up our demands for a change in the ideology of market worship which has been dominant for a generation.
In the absence of a credible left of centre political party to articulate the interests of working people an initiative by rank and file socialists, supported by a number of leading trade unionists and MPs has the potential to put socialist politics back on the agenda just now when we need them.
It seems to me that the Charter restates a number of UNISON policies and that therefore UNISON nationally should endorse this initiative. If you don't believe me about the UNISON policies you can check for yourself. This is the text of the summary of the Charter, with a few links to UNISON Conference policies...
A fair economy for a fairer Britain
Progressive taxes without loopholes or tax-havens. We must own and control the main banks. Guarantee all pensions, mortgages and savings. Tie pensions and benefits to wages. Give Pensioners free transport and heating. Increase the minimum wage..
More and better jobs
Protect existing jobs. Reduce hours, not pay, to create more jobs. Make a massive investment in new jobs, particularly in green technology, for our children's sake..
Decent homes for all
Create 3 million new publicly owned homes. Stop the repossessions. Control rents.
Save and improve our services
Energy, Telecommunications, Post, Water and Transport to be owned by all of us. Remove profit making from the NHS and schools. Support our public service staff..
For Fairness and Justice
Equality for all. Together against all racism and discrimination. Equal pay for women. End child poverty. Give young people a future. Free child and youth facilities, education and training for all. Repeal the anti-union laws to fight poverty and inequality..
A better future starts now
No more blood and money for war. Bring the troops home. No more £billions for nuclear weapons. We want massive investment for a greener, safer world. Get rid of the debt economy in Britain and cancel the debts of the poor of the planet.
The Uses and Abuses of Union Disciplinary action
Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will know that I sometimes criticise actions taken officially on behalf of the Union, on the National Executive Council of which I have the honour to sit, and that I sometimes get involved in trying to change things. This sometimes confuses and upsets people.
If there is one issue calculated to raise the blood pressure of some fellow trade unionists it is the suggestion that our internal disciplinary procedures are occasionally used (wrongly) to settle political differences. I do sometimes suggest this, but I do so because of my own personal experience some years ago. That's also why I don't condemn trade unionists who feel compelled to bring complaints to the Certification Officer.
I faced the threat of disciplinary action (and possible expulsion) as a result of a tribunal case in which a white male UNISON member won a claim of race and sex discrimination against UNISON. The tribunal found against the Union because they believed that I would have taken complaints of race and sex discrimination from a black woman more seriously than I took those from a white man. This was not the most expensive legal mistake in which I had been involved, nor the first time I had been accused of discrimination in legal proceedings but it was the one that, as an insider warned me at the time, a hostile official thought he could get me expelled for.
I had no problem with the fact that the Union conducted a disciplinary investigation in response to an adverse tribunal judgment in a discrimination case but I was angry when I learned that whilst the investigating officer had not recommended disciplinary action against me, such a recommendation was added by a national official. Why did this happen?
Well you would have to ask him yourself to get his answer, but I can speculate.
I had upset people on the right-wing of the Union (who are sometimes unhappy to be identified in that way) by supporting the Hillingdon Hospital strike during my year as Deputy Regional Convenor in 1996/97. I had also been outspoken in opposition to what I saw as the political witch hunt undertaken during the tenure of the previous General Secretary. I had taken on representation of leftwing activists facing disciplinary action within the Union.
Whatever the reasons for this action, it was plainly politically motivated abuse of internal procedures as was recognised when a wiser official and his deputy put a stop to it all once they had the opportunity to do so.
Having previously been on the receiving end of an attempt at politically motivated misuse of our disciplinary procedures I am aware that this can happen, and that those who believe this to be impossible are simply wrong.
Trade unions are democratic organisations and we need to find a way to accommodate disagreement and dissent without the use of disciplinary procedures. After all, UNISON managed to get along ok without expelling me :)
If there is one issue calculated to raise the blood pressure of some fellow trade unionists it is the suggestion that our internal disciplinary procedures are occasionally used (wrongly) to settle political differences. I do sometimes suggest this, but I do so because of my own personal experience some years ago. That's also why I don't condemn trade unionists who feel compelled to bring complaints to the Certification Officer.
I faced the threat of disciplinary action (and possible expulsion) as a result of a tribunal case in which a white male UNISON member won a claim of race and sex discrimination against UNISON. The tribunal found against the Union because they believed that I would have taken complaints of race and sex discrimination from a black woman more seriously than I took those from a white man. This was not the most expensive legal mistake in which I had been involved, nor the first time I had been accused of discrimination in legal proceedings but it was the one that, as an insider warned me at the time, a hostile official thought he could get me expelled for.
I had no problem with the fact that the Union conducted a disciplinary investigation in response to an adverse tribunal judgment in a discrimination case but I was angry when I learned that whilst the investigating officer had not recommended disciplinary action against me, such a recommendation was added by a national official. Why did this happen?
Well you would have to ask him yourself to get his answer, but I can speculate.
I had upset people on the right-wing of the Union (who are sometimes unhappy to be identified in that way) by supporting the Hillingdon Hospital strike during my year as Deputy Regional Convenor in 1996/97. I had also been outspoken in opposition to what I saw as the political witch hunt undertaken during the tenure of the previous General Secretary. I had taken on representation of leftwing activists facing disciplinary action within the Union.
Whatever the reasons for this action, it was plainly politically motivated abuse of internal procedures as was recognised when a wiser official and his deputy put a stop to it all once they had the opportunity to do so.
Having previously been on the receiving end of an attempt at politically motivated misuse of our disciplinary procedures I am aware that this can happen, and that those who believe this to be impossible are simply wrong.
Trade unions are democratic organisations and we need to find a way to accommodate disagreement and dissent without the use of disciplinary procedures. After all, UNISON managed to get along ok without expelling me :)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Prefer to remain anonymous?
I allow anonymous comments on this blog because I understand that many people find it too complicated to give themselves an online name.
I also know of bloggers who keep their real identity concealed for good reasons.
Although I don't post online anonymously I do not therefore criticise those who do – but there are exceptions to this rule.
I think it is unacceptable to use the cloak of anonymity to make personal criticisms of identifiable individuals.
I suppose I should declare an interest as I have been on the receiving end of some anonymous online vitriol in my time (albeit it has been pretty amateurish and poor quality stuff).
When I failed to persuade comrades to back my preferred candidate for Regional Convenor in October 2005 and therefore stood myself in February 2006 I was the target of an intemperate anonymous email.
A good trade unionist who withdrew their nomination as a Regional Council officer that year rather than be associated with such tactics told me then who was behind it. My ill-advised candidacy as Convenor was not a success. The achievements of the successful candidate are well-known and indicate only too well the likely outcome of anonymous vitriol.
Later that year, very obviously from the same stable (and – perhaps flatteringly – after I and other socialist comrades within UNISON had begun blogging) elsewhere the anonymous blogger shut up shop. Since that time some of the same venom has emerged in anonymous comments on other blogs.
To use the cloak of anonymity to make personal attacks against political opponents is the hallmark of the witch hunter. It is in particular the hallmark of those witch hunters whose conditions of employment preclude public attacks upon lay trade union activists.
It is worthy of note that there are strange (formerly) political sects who operate almost entirely anonymously (whilst energetically supporting bureaucratic manoeuvres against other socialists who have the confidence to identify themselves with their beliefs). It is of course no more than a coincidence that one particularly strange bunch share Europhobic prejudices and poorly argued antipathy to national industrial action with a number of right wingers within UNISON's Greater London Region.
These anonymous enemies of socialism and trade unionism are however as nothing to the anonymous critics of socialist trade union activist, Yunus Bakhsh, who connived and conspired to secure his dismissal whilst concealing their racist motivations. The shocking case of Yunus Bakhsh very much underlines the reasons why it is unwise to rely upon anonymous testimony which cannot be tested by cross examination.
As the next round of NEC elections approach within UNISON it is to be expected that those who lack the honesty and self-confidence to identify themselves in public with their own views will step up their vitriol against socialists who seek a more effective trade union to defend our members' interests.
I also know of bloggers who keep their real identity concealed for good reasons.
Although I don't post online anonymously I do not therefore criticise those who do – but there are exceptions to this rule.
I think it is unacceptable to use the cloak of anonymity to make personal criticisms of identifiable individuals.
I suppose I should declare an interest as I have been on the receiving end of some anonymous online vitriol in my time (albeit it has been pretty amateurish and poor quality stuff).
When I failed to persuade comrades to back my preferred candidate for Regional Convenor in October 2005 and therefore stood myself in February 2006 I was the target of an intemperate anonymous email.
A good trade unionist who withdrew their nomination as a Regional Council officer that year rather than be associated with such tactics told me then who was behind it. My ill-advised candidacy as Convenor was not a success. The achievements of the successful candidate are well-known and indicate only too well the likely outcome of anonymous vitriol.
Later that year, very obviously from the same stable (and – perhaps flatteringly – after I and other socialist comrades within UNISON had begun blogging) elsewhere the anonymous blogger shut up shop. Since that time some of the same venom has emerged in anonymous comments on other blogs.
To use the cloak of anonymity to make personal attacks against political opponents is the hallmark of the witch hunter. It is in particular the hallmark of those witch hunters whose conditions of employment preclude public attacks upon lay trade union activists.
It is worthy of note that there are strange (formerly) political sects who operate almost entirely anonymously (whilst energetically supporting bureaucratic manoeuvres against other socialists who have the confidence to identify themselves with their beliefs). It is of course no more than a coincidence that one particularly strange bunch share Europhobic prejudices and poorly argued antipathy to national industrial action with a number of right wingers within UNISON's Greater London Region.
These anonymous enemies of socialism and trade unionism are however as nothing to the anonymous critics of socialist trade union activist, Yunus Bakhsh, who connived and conspired to secure his dismissal whilst concealing their racist motivations. The shocking case of Yunus Bakhsh very much underlines the reasons why it is unwise to rely upon anonymous testimony which cannot be tested by cross examination.
As the next round of NEC elections approach within UNISON it is to be expected that those who lack the honesty and self-confidence to identify themselves in public with their own views will step up their vitriol against socialists who seek a more effective trade union to defend our members' interests.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Organising in the private sector?
UNISON is a public service trade union but we have thousands of private sector members and thousands more work in the private sector delivering public services outside the trade union movement. When those workers do come the way of the Union it is often as isolated individuals needing servicing and support rather than as an organised collective group. UNISON activists have seen this problem for years and have been debating what to do about it, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere.
At UNISON National Delegate Conference 2005 we noted that “since 1993, when UNISON was established, the delivery of public services in the United Kingdom (UK) has been subject to widespread change and restructuring.” The previous year’s Local Government Conference had recognised that the preceding few years had witnessed some key changes in how services are being delivered.
Conference 2005 therefore instructed the National Executive Council(NEC) to undertake a review of service group structures and branch organisation, in consultation with branches, regions, service groups and self-organised groups, and young members, and report back to conference in 2007 with rule amendments if appropriate. This was reported on in 2007 when National Delegate Conference took further decisions following on from the National Executive Council's report on the Review of Branch and Service Group Structures.
I have blogged before about the Rule Amendments which will be put to this year’s Conference by the NEC. There is more to be said about these proposals, which create new Service Groups and devolve bargaining responsibilities to Sectors, but perhaps the most significant thing about the proposals which we will be debating is what is missing.
Recommendation 7 of the 2007 report identified members employed by private contractors as one of the groups in respect of whom the NEC would undertake further work, including local consultation with these groups of members, in order to identify what additional structural changes may be needed at national, regional and local level.
The 2004 Local Government Conference had noted that Large scale transfers have been witnessed in Lincolnshire, Blackburn and Liverpool with private companies providing many of those authorities core administration and financial services, whilst the 2005 National Delegate Conference decision had noted the impact of privatisation on our Union organisation.
This is not a new problem – I got myself and the Union into a deal of difficulty more than ten years ago trying to organise and secure recognition for workers in a private care home. A decade later and our Union still has not developed a sensible structure to organise members in the private sector. The losers from this include the enormous workforce in the burgeoning private care sector in particular, working largely without union protection.
The report considered by the Development and Organisation Committee in January concluded that “there are a number of different solutions to the representation of Private Contractors in UNISON. In health, there is an overwhelming wish to remain in health due to the strong NHS identity; however, other groups such as Vertex have a far stronger identity in their own right and see little link back to public services and therefore will benefit from an enhanced sector identity.” Since this says precisely nothing about branch structure and organisation it says little that is relevant to the experience of organising our private sector members.
It is ironic and more than a little frustrating, if perhaps understandable, that the most intractable of our organisational dilemmas is precisely the one which the NEC is completely failing to address in the proposals coming before Conference. I think therefore that activists at branch level need to take this debate forward. Our private contractor organising work at national level quite sensibly focuses upon large contractors who bid for major local government contracts. It barely touches the workforce in the private care sector.
What is to be done?
Amongst the very least helpful contributions to the debate which hardly takes place at NEC level about how to address this organisational shortcoming are the ill-informed whinges about branches who are happy to take members subscriptions but do not wish to service private sector members. I fear that those NEC colleagues who express such opinions illustrate only their own ignorance of conditions at grass roots level in our Union.
I know from personal experience and from discussion with other Branch Secretaries that in fact what we are doing at branch level is fire fighting as we try to service private sector members whom our branches generally lack the resources to organise effectively. Yesterday I spoke to a committed organiser who is one of our most energetic and effective Branch Secretaries. He said that, in the absence of organising support from Regional level he would not be accepting into membership employees from private sector organisations in which the branch did not already organise.
There is an urgent need to find a better answer to this problem.
At UNISON National Delegate Conference 2005 we noted that “since 1993, when UNISON was established, the delivery of public services in the United Kingdom (UK) has been subject to widespread change and restructuring.” The previous year’s Local Government Conference had recognised that the preceding few years had witnessed some key changes in how services are being delivered.
Conference 2005 therefore instructed the National Executive Council(NEC) to undertake a review of service group structures and branch organisation, in consultation with branches, regions, service groups and self-organised groups, and young members, and report back to conference in 2007 with rule amendments if appropriate. This was reported on in 2007 when National Delegate Conference took further decisions following on from the National Executive Council's report on the Review of Branch and Service Group Structures.
I have blogged before about the Rule Amendments which will be put to this year’s Conference by the NEC. There is more to be said about these proposals, which create new Service Groups and devolve bargaining responsibilities to Sectors, but perhaps the most significant thing about the proposals which we will be debating is what is missing.
Recommendation 7 of the 2007 report identified members employed by private contractors as one of the groups in respect of whom the NEC would undertake further work, including local consultation with these groups of members, in order to identify what additional structural changes may be needed at national, regional and local level.
The 2004 Local Government Conference had noted that Large scale transfers have been witnessed in Lincolnshire, Blackburn and Liverpool with private companies providing many of those authorities core administration and financial services, whilst the 2005 National Delegate Conference decision had noted the impact of privatisation on our Union organisation.
This is not a new problem – I got myself and the Union into a deal of difficulty more than ten years ago trying to organise and secure recognition for workers in a private care home. A decade later and our Union still has not developed a sensible structure to organise members in the private sector. The losers from this include the enormous workforce in the burgeoning private care sector in particular, working largely without union protection.
The report considered by the Development and Organisation Committee in January concluded that “there are a number of different solutions to the representation of Private Contractors in UNISON. In health, there is an overwhelming wish to remain in health due to the strong NHS identity; however, other groups such as Vertex have a far stronger identity in their own right and see little link back to public services and therefore will benefit from an enhanced sector identity.” Since this says precisely nothing about branch structure and organisation it says little that is relevant to the experience of organising our private sector members.
It is ironic and more than a little frustrating, if perhaps understandable, that the most intractable of our organisational dilemmas is precisely the one which the NEC is completely failing to address in the proposals coming before Conference. I think therefore that activists at branch level need to take this debate forward. Our private contractor organising work at national level quite sensibly focuses upon large contractors who bid for major local government contracts. It barely touches the workforce in the private care sector.
What is to be done?
Amongst the very least helpful contributions to the debate which hardly takes place at NEC level about how to address this organisational shortcoming are the ill-informed whinges about branches who are happy to take members subscriptions but do not wish to service private sector members. I fear that those NEC colleagues who express such opinions illustrate only their own ignorance of conditions at grass roots level in our Union.
I know from personal experience and from discussion with other Branch Secretaries that in fact what we are doing at branch level is fire fighting as we try to service private sector members whom our branches generally lack the resources to organise effectively. Yesterday I spoke to a committed organiser who is one of our most energetic and effective Branch Secretaries. He said that, in the absence of organising support from Regional level he would not be accepting into membership employees from private sector organisations in which the branch did not already organise.
There is an urgent need to find a better answer to this problem.
Fight the victimisation of UNISON activists
As I am on leave for the day I have been thinking about fellow trade unionists experiencing enforced leisure thanks to their victimisation by the employers. I’ve blogged before (and soon will again) about the long running case of victimised nurse Yunus Bakhsh, sacked on trumped up charges which have already been discredited.
Unfortunately in recent weeks three more good UNISON activists have shared his fate. My fellow UNISON NEC member John McDermott has been sacked by East and North East Leeds Housing and – in a worrying indication that other new providers of social housing also want to pick a fight with their staff, respected Tower Hamlets UNISON activist Debbie Cordroy has been dismissed by One Housing Group. It tells you all you need to know about John that he was speaking in support of Debbie the evening before he got the result of his own case. UNISON members in Leeds have taken strike action in support of John and members in Tower Hamlets will be balloting for action to support Debbie following a very effective public meeting.
This week Jose Stalin Bermudez, Chair of the UNISON Branch at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and leading campaigner against low pay and for justice for migrant workers, has been sacked. SOAS boast on their website of “a long and distinguished history of widening the horizons of its students and helping them gain the skills needed for careers in an increasingly international environment” – happily the students have had their horizons widened enough already to be supporting UNISON and UCU members who want to fight this victimisation. The UNISON branch will be seeking a strike ballot and I am sure that action will be taken if SOAS do not back down.
In all these cases employers will claim some spurious justification for what is really an attack upon vocal and effective organisers. The employers will seek to pursue these cases behind the closed doors of disciplinary and appeal hearings and cajole the Union into settling at best for paltry compensation. UNISON needs to stand firm against these victimisations or in the coming year of recession we will see many more such cases.
We need public campaigns in which we make clear that we will not bow to bullying from the employers.
Unfortunately in recent weeks three more good UNISON activists have shared his fate. My fellow UNISON NEC member John McDermott has been sacked by East and North East Leeds Housing and – in a worrying indication that other new providers of social housing also want to pick a fight with their staff, respected Tower Hamlets UNISON activist Debbie Cordroy has been dismissed by One Housing Group. It tells you all you need to know about John that he was speaking in support of Debbie the evening before he got the result of his own case. UNISON members in Leeds have taken strike action in support of John and members in Tower Hamlets will be balloting for action to support Debbie following a very effective public meeting.
This week Jose Stalin Bermudez, Chair of the UNISON Branch at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and leading campaigner against low pay and for justice for migrant workers, has been sacked. SOAS boast on their website of “a long and distinguished history of widening the horizons of its students and helping them gain the skills needed for careers in an increasingly international environment” – happily the students have had their horizons widened enough already to be supporting UNISON and UCU members who want to fight this victimisation. The UNISON branch will be seeking a strike ballot and I am sure that action will be taken if SOAS do not back down.
In all these cases employers will claim some spurious justification for what is really an attack upon vocal and effective organisers. The employers will seek to pursue these cases behind the closed doors of disciplinary and appeal hearings and cajole the Union into settling at best for paltry compensation. UNISON needs to stand firm against these victimisations or in the coming year of recession we will see many more such cases.
We need public campaigns in which we make clear that we will not bow to bullying from the employers.
What should be done about witch hunters?
It's good news that the Information Commissioner is closing down a company running an illegal service to enable construction sector employers to avoid employing union activists.
There's nothing new about employers cooperating to keep such information - the Economic League did so for most of the twentieth century.
When the Economic League was finished off in the early 90s it would now appear that its most active customers in the construction sector found an alternative.
The company will close, but what about its customers?
How many managers in the customers of this organisation knew what they were doing and that they were breaking the law? How many will be disciplined or dismissed for this deliberate law breaking?
UNISON's often low paid public service members are subject to all sorts of Codes of Practice and - in the past year - I have represented workers sacked for breaking laws quite unrelated to their job.
If only they had been well paid HR managers deliberately breaking the law to wreck the lives of good trade unionists. They would still be at work today.
Update on Friday evening you can read interesting comment from Gregor Gall and Dave Osler online.
We need to articulate some demands in response to this news, and to the increase in victimisation of trade union activists. How about compensation from the construction industry for those on the covert database? An increase in resources for enforcement of data protection legislation? Reversing the burden of proof in trade union victimisation cases so that employers have to prove, if disciplining a representative, that they are not victimising them?
There's nothing new about employers cooperating to keep such information - the Economic League did so for most of the twentieth century.
When the Economic League was finished off in the early 90s it would now appear that its most active customers in the construction sector found an alternative.
The company will close, but what about its customers?
How many managers in the customers of this organisation knew what they were doing and that they were breaking the law? How many will be disciplined or dismissed for this deliberate law breaking?
UNISON's often low paid public service members are subject to all sorts of Codes of Practice and - in the past year - I have represented workers sacked for breaking laws quite unrelated to their job.
If only they had been well paid HR managers deliberately breaking the law to wreck the lives of good trade unionists. They would still be at work today.
Update on Friday evening you can read interesting comment from Gregor Gall and Dave Osler online.
We need to articulate some demands in response to this news, and to the increase in victimisation of trade union activists. How about compensation from the construction industry for those on the covert database? An increase in resources for enforcement of data protection legislation? Reversing the burden of proof in trade union victimisation cases so that employers have to prove, if disciplining a representative, that they are not victimising them?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
O.3% better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick...
We now have news of the ACAS arbitration award. We are welcoming the extra 0.3% and the employers are unhappy. That last is probably the best indication that we ought to be pleased (with apologies to any employers' side colleagues reading this of course!)
The employers say; "We are extremely surprised and disappointed by this outcome, which runs counter to all the evidence we submitted in written and oral presentations to the panel." However the fact that arbitrators arbitrate should hardly come as such a surprise and I hope that some of the more intemperate language in the employers' circular ("We are of course aware that the experience of the last few months has led some to question the value of the relationship with trade unions and how it affects national bargaining.") is just raw red meat for the true blue shires.
I still believe that arbitration was a mistake, albeit one which we had little choice but to make by the time the decision was arrived at in September, and that we could have done better than 2.75% if we had been able to unify all those public sector workers with pay disputes in 2008.
However, this arbitration award nevertheless demonstrates that taking action and pursuing a dispute can produce a positive outcome. Was it worth it?
For those of us who lost two days pay of course we lost more than 0.3% of our annual salary in doing so (depending upon how the calculation was done the amount is about 0.75%). However that was a one off cost - whereas the extra 0.3% is now consolidated into our future earnings for the rest of our time in local government and will be a part of the final earnings on which our pension will be calculated.
Even on the basis of a narrow financial calculation therefore, those of us who took strike action last July were justified in doing so and have been vindicated. If those who crossed the picket lines (but will now also benefit from our action) had stood by us we would have course have won more and sooner.
With local government facing a toxic mix of financial pressures, dogma-driven privatisation and threats to our pension rights we need our Union to give a fighting lead to win the confidence of our members to take action in defence of our interests. We also need to enthuse our activists at every level behind a campaigning approach to the unavoidable defensive struggles which we now face.
The employers say; "We are extremely surprised and disappointed by this outcome, which runs counter to all the evidence we submitted in written and oral presentations to the panel." However the fact that arbitrators arbitrate should hardly come as such a surprise and I hope that some of the more intemperate language in the employers' circular ("We are of course aware that the experience of the last few months has led some to question the value of the relationship with trade unions and how it affects national bargaining.") is just raw red meat for the true blue shires.
I still believe that arbitration was a mistake, albeit one which we had little choice but to make by the time the decision was arrived at in September, and that we could have done better than 2.75% if we had been able to unify all those public sector workers with pay disputes in 2008.
However, this arbitration award nevertheless demonstrates that taking action and pursuing a dispute can produce a positive outcome. Was it worth it?
For those of us who lost two days pay of course we lost more than 0.3% of our annual salary in doing so (depending upon how the calculation was done the amount is about 0.75%). However that was a one off cost - whereas the extra 0.3% is now consolidated into our future earnings for the rest of our time in local government and will be a part of the final earnings on which our pension will be calculated.
Even on the basis of a narrow financial calculation therefore, those of us who took strike action last July were justified in doing so and have been vindicated. If those who crossed the picket lines (but will now also benefit from our action) had stood by us we would have course have won more and sooner.
With local government facing a toxic mix of financial pressures, dogma-driven privatisation and threats to our pension rights we need our Union to give a fighting lead to win the confidence of our members to take action in defence of our interests. We also need to enthuse our activists at every level behind a campaigning approach to the unavoidable defensive struggles which we now face.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Oppose Welfare "Reform"
UNISON is supporting tomorrow’s lobby of Parliament on Welfare Reform, called by our sister union, PCS.
PCS are opposed to plans to privatise the public employment service and social fund.
They argue that the flexible new deal tendering process and the proposals contained in the bill should be abandoned. It is wrong to allow organisations to make profits out of the sick and unemployed.
They want to see the government focus on safeguarding and creating jobs instead of punitive sanctions and increased conditionality for claimants.
It seems ironic that the Government should step up the pressure to force claimaints into work just at the point at which the recession means that there are fewer employment opportunities – but this is not ironic at all.
During an economic crisis employers will seek to restore profitability by reducing labour costs and measures which increase labour supply, and encourage those thrown out of work to accept lower paid employment contribute to this objective.
This has nothing to do with modernising public services, except in the sense that the New Poor Law represented “modernisation” in the 1830s. There is further online comment here.
For those of us who cannot make it to the lobby of Parliament tomorrow – there is an online petition to sign.
PCS are opposed to plans to privatise the public employment service and social fund.
They argue that the flexible new deal tendering process and the proposals contained in the bill should be abandoned. It is wrong to allow organisations to make profits out of the sick and unemployed.
They want to see the government focus on safeguarding and creating jobs instead of punitive sanctions and increased conditionality for claimants.
It seems ironic that the Government should step up the pressure to force claimaints into work just at the point at which the recession means that there are fewer employment opportunities – but this is not ironic at all.
During an economic crisis employers will seek to restore profitability by reducing labour costs and measures which increase labour supply, and encourage those thrown out of work to accept lower paid employment contribute to this objective.
This has nothing to do with modernising public services, except in the sense that the New Poor Law represented “modernisation” in the 1830s. There is further online comment here.
For those of us who cannot make it to the lobby of Parliament tomorrow – there is an online petition to sign.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
UNISON NEC report to London branches
This is the text of my report to Greater London UNISON Branches from the February meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC). It's a bit on the long side so make a cup of tea before settling down to read this...
Conference Business – Policy Motions
The meeting began by discussing the NEC’s motions and Rule Amendments for this year’s National Delegate Conference. These will appear in the Preliminary Agenda for Conference in a couple of weeks, but if any Greater London Branches would like sight of the text of the motions as put to the NEC please let me know.
The topics of the motions are as follows;
Organising ;
Learning and Organising;
Improving UNISON Structures;
Climate Change
The Economy
The Housing Crisis
New Challenges for the NHS
Public Services
Welfare Safety Net
Cuba
Rights of Public Service Workers to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Palestine;
Funding the Equal Pay Challenge.
There was some discussion of amendments to the motions at the meeting and the greatest controversy surrounded the motion on Palestine, which had been agreed by the International Committee but which a number of NEC members (myself included) felt did not adequately reflect UNISON’s established position of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The Chair of the Policy Committee proposed a number of amendments to the motion from the International Committee, most (but not all) of which were agreed by the NEC against the opposition of the International Committee.
Alongside this discussion, the NEC also considered a separate item outlining the work which had been undertaken in response to the recent Gaza crisis. UNISON had been well represented on the London demonstration on 10 January.
The Palestinian trade unions had been invited to Health Conference and Dave Prentis had turned down an invitation to the Congress of the (Israeli) Histradut Government Employees Union citing the failure of the Histradut to condemn Israeli military action.
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (general)
The NEC also agreed Rule Amendments for submission to Conference as follows;
Schedule B (bringing the Rules on Benefits into line with the Rule Change on Legal Assistance agreed last year which reduced the qualifying period of membership from 13 to 4 weeks);
New Rule G8 (introducing Equality Representatives)(in relation to which I think that there may be need for further consultation with our self-organised groups);
New Rule G.4.1.6 (this prohibits one person holding more than one of the offices of Branch Chair, Secretary and Treasurer – the original incentive for this amendment comes from instances of fraud perpetrated against the Union by individuals who were both Branch Secretary and Branch Treasurer);
Rule Q (this changes the definition of “reserved seats” to increase the hourly rate of pay for eligibility for these seats to £8.50. I had raised concerns about how to give effect to our intention of excluding London Weighting from this definition and this will now be dealt with by subsequent interpretation of the Rules).
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (UNISON structures)
The following additional Rule Amendments were agreed arising from the discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee on UNISON Structures;
Rule D.3.1.1 adding a new “Community” Service Group and deleting Rule D.3.7.4;
Rule D.3.1.1 replacing the Higher Education Service Group with a new Further and Higher Education Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.1 replacing the Police staff Service Group with a new Police and Justice Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.1 merging the Water and Environment and Transport Service Groups into a new Water, Environment and Transport Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.4 changing the functions of Service Groups consistent with the proposed amendment to Rules D.3.7.1 and D.3.7.2;
Replacement rules D.3.7.1 and D.3.7.2 giving sectors autonomy over bargaining and industrial relations issues;
Rule Q (new definitions of Sector and Occupational Group);
Rule D.2.9.6 clarifying the power of the NEC to oversee cross service group work;
Rule D.2.9.13 giving the NEC power to issue guidance on the democratic accountability of sectors.
There was considerable debate around these Rule Amendments reflecting the debate which had taken place at the Development and Organisation Committee on the previous day. Several NEC members felt that the consultation process had been rushed so that, for example, the Higher Education Service group had agreed to oppose the previous proposal (which would have included members in schools in an all embracing “Education” Service Group) and could not commit to support the new proposal as this had not been discussed with the Service Group.
I did not oppose the proposed creation of new Service Groups, although I know that there is not a complete consensus amongst those affected by all of the proposals on the basis that there will be further discussion between now and Conference, and that it would take a two thirds majority at Conference to agree these.
I did however oppose the proposed changes to the roles of Service Groups and Sectors because I fear that the current proposals create a democratic deficit which they do not then address. At present Service Group Conferences can hold Sector Committees to account over their conduct of bargaining over important industrial relations issues. Because the NEC is not proposing to create the possibility of Sector Conferences, but is devolving accountability from Service Groups to Sectors, these proposals would remove from effective democratic accountability some of the most important work of our Union. This debate will now continue with consultation on NEC guidelines on the democratic accountability of Sectors, about which I will circulate a separate report to UNISON branches in Greater London in the near future.
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (BNP membership etc.)
Further Rule Amendments were also agreed which are intended to update our Rules in relation to the power of the Union to exclude or expel members of the British National Party or other far right organisations in the light of Section 19 of the Employment Act 2008;
New Rule C.5.2 which states that members of political parties, the objects of which are contrary to the objects of UNISON are not eligible to be UNISON members;
A replacement for the existing Rule C.5.2 and a new Rule C.5.5 which removes the requirement for new members to be approved by a Branch Committee and gives potential members who are to be excluded the right to make representations;
A replacement for Rule !.3 consistent with the proposed new Rule C.5.2.
This subject had been discussed at the Development and Organisation Committee but the wording of these Rule Amendments had not been available until the NEC meeting itself. I would have preferred a more straightforward Rule Amendment dealing with the British National Party by name, but can understand the argument that far right organisations frequently change their names and that there are other fascist groups members of which we may wish to exclude from our Union.
I opposed the removal from the Rule Book of the right of Branch Committees to reject applicants for membership which is presently in Rule C.5.2 and which these Rule Amendments would remove. Conference delegates probably now need to take the time which the NEC did not take to decide whether we have got these particular Rule Amendments right (although of course we can always make further amendments in future years).
After a number of years in which the Thursday afternoon of Conference (when debates on Rule Amendments traditionally take place) has been quiet and the Standing Orders Committee have been able to timetable policy debates in the expectation that the Rules debate will not take up an entire session, this year branches will need to set aside some time to discuss Rules Amendments and to mandate delegates in what will be a series of important debates.
Recruitment
It was noted that UNISON membership had increased by 1.5% (or 19,000 net) in 2008 as we recruited a total of 156,000 people. Given the recruitment of over one hundred local and area organisers and the introduction in the coming year of the facility to join UNISON on the website we may have the scope to increase membership growth in the coming year.
Public Sector Pay Negotiations
The General Secretary reported that there had been little change since the previous NEC meeting. The Union is pressing employers in Further Education to implement last year’s pay award. The Head of Local Government reported on the arbitration hearing at ACAS the previous day, details of which have been circulated to local government branches.
Equal Pay
As has been the case at each NEC meeting for at least the past three years, the NEC received a confidential and legally privileged report updating us on developments in legal cases and their implications. Individual NEC members are asked not to report in writing on this item in view of the possibility of such reports being used by “no win no fee” solicitors taking action against the Union. Branches should contact Regional Organisers and check the website to be kept up to date on this issue.
Industrial Action Handbook
The NEC endorsed a revised version of UNISON’s Industrial Action Handbook which had been agreed by the Industrial Action Committee. The revised handbook will be re-printed and published on the website. This continues to affirm the right of branches to appeal to the Industrial Action Committee where the Regional Secretary does not agree to authorise a ballot for action.
UNISON Response to the Economic Crisis
The NEC received a useful report summarising aspects of UNISON’s response to the Economic Crisis. The General Secretary made clear that it will be a priority to maximise the turnout on the “Put People First” demonstration on Saturday 28 March (details of how to order additional leaflets are on the website).
General Secretary’s Report
The General Secretary reported that some NEC members had complained about other NEC members having written an open letter to him about an issue.
An NEC member from the Northern Region made clear that it was Northern Region NEC members who were complaining about an open letter expressing concern about the case of Yunus Bakhsh (of which I am very happy to have been a signatory).
In response, I asked for, and received, an assurance that UNISON is investigating evidence of BNP involvement in an internal UNISON disciplinary matter in that Region.
Campaigning against the BNP
The NEC received a report dealing with plans for anti-BNP work in the run up to June’s European elections. UNISON will continue to work with a range of partners including, the TUC, Searchlight, Unite Against Facism (UAF), the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR) and Show Racism the Red Card. The Policy Committee and General Political Fund Committees have agreed to prioritise Searchlight’s “Hope Not Hate” campaign.
Social Care
The NEC was updated on work on children’s social work following the Baby P case and on the personalisation of Home Care. Branches will be aware that UNISON made detailed submissions to the Laming Inquiry and that one our our national officers has been appointed to the Social Work Taskforce created by the Departments of Health and Children, Schools and Families. 80% of Home Care is now delivered in the private and voluntary sectors, and there will be a session on personalisation of home care at Local Government Service Group Conference as well as a joint meeting of the Health and Local Government Service Groups to address this and other issues. Further information is available on the website.
Review of Political Fund Effectiveness
The NEC noted a report on (limited) progress in implementing last year’s Conference decision that the NEC should “carry out a full review of political fund arrangements” – there will be a seminar for members of the Political Funds Committees and the Policy Committee in Manchester in March to be followed by a questionnaire on political organisation, lobbying and campaigning for branches and regions in the spring, leading to an interim report to Conference 2009 and a final report the following year.
New Head Office project
The budget for the building of the new UNISON HQ building, work on which has now commenced, has increased from £70 Million to £72.5 Million. The Finance and Resource Management Committee is receiving regular reports on this project. Further information is available online.
UNISON Disciplinary issues
I was one of a number of NEC members who voted against accepting the routine report on UNISON Disciplinary matters. I did this because it is the only means available to an NEC member wishing to express formal opposition to the conduct of any particular case. Any Greater London Region UNISON branch wishing to ask for an explanation of my vote (or indeed to ask about any matter covered in or omitted from this report) please get in touch.
Conference Business – Policy Motions
The meeting began by discussing the NEC’s motions and Rule Amendments for this year’s National Delegate Conference. These will appear in the Preliminary Agenda for Conference in a couple of weeks, but if any Greater London Branches would like sight of the text of the motions as put to the NEC please let me know.
The topics of the motions are as follows;
Organising ;
Learning and Organising;
Improving UNISON Structures;
Climate Change
The Economy
The Housing Crisis
New Challenges for the NHS
Public Services
Welfare Safety Net
Cuba
Rights of Public Service Workers to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Palestine;
Funding the Equal Pay Challenge.
There was some discussion of amendments to the motions at the meeting and the greatest controversy surrounded the motion on Palestine, which had been agreed by the International Committee but which a number of NEC members (myself included) felt did not adequately reflect UNISON’s established position of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The Chair of the Policy Committee proposed a number of amendments to the motion from the International Committee, most (but not all) of which were agreed by the NEC against the opposition of the International Committee.
Alongside this discussion, the NEC also considered a separate item outlining the work which had been undertaken in response to the recent Gaza crisis. UNISON had been well represented on the London demonstration on 10 January.
The Palestinian trade unions had been invited to Health Conference and Dave Prentis had turned down an invitation to the Congress of the (Israeli) Histradut Government Employees Union citing the failure of the Histradut to condemn Israeli military action.
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (general)
The NEC also agreed Rule Amendments for submission to Conference as follows;
Schedule B (bringing the Rules on Benefits into line with the Rule Change on Legal Assistance agreed last year which reduced the qualifying period of membership from 13 to 4 weeks);
New Rule G8 (introducing Equality Representatives)(in relation to which I think that there may be need for further consultation with our self-organised groups);
New Rule G.4.1.6 (this prohibits one person holding more than one of the offices of Branch Chair, Secretary and Treasurer – the original incentive for this amendment comes from instances of fraud perpetrated against the Union by individuals who were both Branch Secretary and Branch Treasurer);
Rule Q (this changes the definition of “reserved seats” to increase the hourly rate of pay for eligibility for these seats to £8.50. I had raised concerns about how to give effect to our intention of excluding London Weighting from this definition and this will now be dealt with by subsequent interpretation of the Rules).
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (UNISON structures)
The following additional Rule Amendments were agreed arising from the discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee on UNISON Structures;
Rule D.3.1.1 adding a new “Community” Service Group and deleting Rule D.3.7.4;
Rule D.3.1.1 replacing the Higher Education Service Group with a new Further and Higher Education Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.1 replacing the Police staff Service Group with a new Police and Justice Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.1 merging the Water and Environment and Transport Service Groups into a new Water, Environment and Transport Service Group;
Rule D.3.1.4 changing the functions of Service Groups consistent with the proposed amendment to Rules D.3.7.1 and D.3.7.2;
Replacement rules D.3.7.1 and D.3.7.2 giving sectors autonomy over bargaining and industrial relations issues;
Rule Q (new definitions of Sector and Occupational Group);
Rule D.2.9.6 clarifying the power of the NEC to oversee cross service group work;
Rule D.2.9.13 giving the NEC power to issue guidance on the democratic accountability of sectors.
There was considerable debate around these Rule Amendments reflecting the debate which had taken place at the Development and Organisation Committee on the previous day. Several NEC members felt that the consultation process had been rushed so that, for example, the Higher Education Service group had agreed to oppose the previous proposal (which would have included members in schools in an all embracing “Education” Service Group) and could not commit to support the new proposal as this had not been discussed with the Service Group.
I did not oppose the proposed creation of new Service Groups, although I know that there is not a complete consensus amongst those affected by all of the proposals on the basis that there will be further discussion between now and Conference, and that it would take a two thirds majority at Conference to agree these.
I did however oppose the proposed changes to the roles of Service Groups and Sectors because I fear that the current proposals create a democratic deficit which they do not then address. At present Service Group Conferences can hold Sector Committees to account over their conduct of bargaining over important industrial relations issues. Because the NEC is not proposing to create the possibility of Sector Conferences, but is devolving accountability from Service Groups to Sectors, these proposals would remove from effective democratic accountability some of the most important work of our Union. This debate will now continue with consultation on NEC guidelines on the democratic accountability of Sectors, about which I will circulate a separate report to UNISON branches in Greater London in the near future.
Conference Business – Rule Amendments (BNP membership etc.)
Further Rule Amendments were also agreed which are intended to update our Rules in relation to the power of the Union to exclude or expel members of the British National Party or other far right organisations in the light of Section 19 of the Employment Act 2008;
New Rule C.5.2 which states that members of political parties, the objects of which are contrary to the objects of UNISON are not eligible to be UNISON members;
A replacement for the existing Rule C.5.2 and a new Rule C.5.5 which removes the requirement for new members to be approved by a Branch Committee and gives potential members who are to be excluded the right to make representations;
A replacement for Rule !.3 consistent with the proposed new Rule C.5.2.
This subject had been discussed at the Development and Organisation Committee but the wording of these Rule Amendments had not been available until the NEC meeting itself. I would have preferred a more straightforward Rule Amendment dealing with the British National Party by name, but can understand the argument that far right organisations frequently change their names and that there are other fascist groups members of which we may wish to exclude from our Union.
I opposed the removal from the Rule Book of the right of Branch Committees to reject applicants for membership which is presently in Rule C.5.2 and which these Rule Amendments would remove. Conference delegates probably now need to take the time which the NEC did not take to decide whether we have got these particular Rule Amendments right (although of course we can always make further amendments in future years).
After a number of years in which the Thursday afternoon of Conference (when debates on Rule Amendments traditionally take place) has been quiet and the Standing Orders Committee have been able to timetable policy debates in the expectation that the Rules debate will not take up an entire session, this year branches will need to set aside some time to discuss Rules Amendments and to mandate delegates in what will be a series of important debates.
Recruitment
It was noted that UNISON membership had increased by 1.5% (or 19,000 net) in 2008 as we recruited a total of 156,000 people. Given the recruitment of over one hundred local and area organisers and the introduction in the coming year of the facility to join UNISON on the website we may have the scope to increase membership growth in the coming year.
Public Sector Pay Negotiations
The General Secretary reported that there had been little change since the previous NEC meeting. The Union is pressing employers in Further Education to implement last year’s pay award. The Head of Local Government reported on the arbitration hearing at ACAS the previous day, details of which have been circulated to local government branches.
Equal Pay
As has been the case at each NEC meeting for at least the past three years, the NEC received a confidential and legally privileged report updating us on developments in legal cases and their implications. Individual NEC members are asked not to report in writing on this item in view of the possibility of such reports being used by “no win no fee” solicitors taking action against the Union. Branches should contact Regional Organisers and check the website to be kept up to date on this issue.
Industrial Action Handbook
The NEC endorsed a revised version of UNISON’s Industrial Action Handbook which had been agreed by the Industrial Action Committee. The revised handbook will be re-printed and published on the website. This continues to affirm the right of branches to appeal to the Industrial Action Committee where the Regional Secretary does not agree to authorise a ballot for action.
UNISON Response to the Economic Crisis
The NEC received a useful report summarising aspects of UNISON’s response to the Economic Crisis. The General Secretary made clear that it will be a priority to maximise the turnout on the “Put People First” demonstration on Saturday 28 March (details of how to order additional leaflets are on the website).
General Secretary’s Report
The General Secretary reported that some NEC members had complained about other NEC members having written an open letter to him about an issue.
An NEC member from the Northern Region made clear that it was Northern Region NEC members who were complaining about an open letter expressing concern about the case of Yunus Bakhsh (of which I am very happy to have been a signatory).
In response, I asked for, and received, an assurance that UNISON is investigating evidence of BNP involvement in an internal UNISON disciplinary matter in that Region.
Campaigning against the BNP
The NEC received a report dealing with plans for anti-BNP work in the run up to June’s European elections. UNISON will continue to work with a range of partners including, the TUC, Searchlight, Unite Against Facism (UAF), the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR) and Show Racism the Red Card. The Policy Committee and General Political Fund Committees have agreed to prioritise Searchlight’s “Hope Not Hate” campaign.
Social Care
The NEC was updated on work on children’s social work following the Baby P case and on the personalisation of Home Care. Branches will be aware that UNISON made detailed submissions to the Laming Inquiry and that one our our national officers has been appointed to the Social Work Taskforce created by the Departments of Health and Children, Schools and Families. 80% of Home Care is now delivered in the private and voluntary sectors, and there will be a session on personalisation of home care at Local Government Service Group Conference as well as a joint meeting of the Health and Local Government Service Groups to address this and other issues. Further information is available on the website.
Review of Political Fund Effectiveness
The NEC noted a report on (limited) progress in implementing last year’s Conference decision that the NEC should “carry out a full review of political fund arrangements” – there will be a seminar for members of the Political Funds Committees and the Policy Committee in Manchester in March to be followed by a questionnaire on political organisation, lobbying and campaigning for branches and regions in the spring, leading to an interim report to Conference 2009 and a final report the following year.
New Head Office project
The budget for the building of the new UNISON HQ building, work on which has now commenced, has increased from £70 Million to £72.5 Million. The Finance and Resource Management Committee is receiving regular reports on this project. Further information is available online.
UNISON Disciplinary issues
I was one of a number of NEC members who voted against accepting the routine report on UNISON Disciplinary matters. I did this because it is the only means available to an NEC member wishing to express formal opposition to the conduct of any particular case. Any Greater London Region UNISON branch wishing to ask for an explanation of my vote (or indeed to ask about any matter covered in or omitted from this report) please get in touch.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Time to fight job losses
It's a good few years since I was an economics student (I'm not nearly as young as I look in the profile picture) but I do remember a bit about what the Government should do in a recession.
Cutting jobs isn't it - so it is galling to learn that half of local authorities have cut jobs in the current crisis.
Reducing jobs in local government further reduces spending power in the local economy and thereby worsens the recession. What we need is a massive programme of public spending with increases, not reductions in public sector employment.
What we are getting from Tory dominated local government is a taste of the economic policies of what I fear may be our next Government.
Today I had the pleasure of speaking at the AGM of the Hammersmith and Fulham Branch of UNISON, where I heard the best speech I've heard in a while from UNISON member Dawn Francis, one of five women workers who face redundancy because of the hare-brained scheme of her wildly reactionary Tory employers to first privatise their caller centre and then move it to Rochdale.
The five workers have a total of 93 years service with the Council but face the sack on 15 March because they can't be redeployed. The meeting voted unanimously to request a ballot for strike action to defend these workers' jobs.
This is the sort of response we need to job losses in local government.
The demonstration on 28 March is an excellent opportunity for us to mobilise our response to the economic crisis - we also need to put our Union on a war footing to fight to defend our jobs, conditions, services and pensions.
Cutting jobs isn't it - so it is galling to learn that half of local authorities have cut jobs in the current crisis.
Reducing jobs in local government further reduces spending power in the local economy and thereby worsens the recession. What we need is a massive programme of public spending with increases, not reductions in public sector employment.
What we are getting from Tory dominated local government is a taste of the economic policies of what I fear may be our next Government.
Today I had the pleasure of speaking at the AGM of the Hammersmith and Fulham Branch of UNISON, where I heard the best speech I've heard in a while from UNISON member Dawn Francis, one of five women workers who face redundancy because of the hare-brained scheme of her wildly reactionary Tory employers to first privatise their caller centre and then move it to Rochdale.
The five workers have a total of 93 years service with the Council but face the sack on 15 March because they can't be redeployed. The meeting voted unanimously to request a ballot for strike action to defend these workers' jobs.
This is the sort of response we need to job losses in local government.
The demonstration on 28 March is an excellent opportunity for us to mobilise our response to the economic crisis - we also need to put our Union on a war footing to fight to defend our jobs, conditions, services and pensions.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Keep the Post Public - support Tuesday's lobby
It shouldn't be necessary under a Labour Government, still less in the aftermath of the collapse of the finance sector and the massive bail out funded from the public purse, but Mandelson and Brown still want to part privatise the Royal Mail.
It's easy to become punch drunk with the sheer reactionary stupidity of New Labour and to stop being angry that the Government is willing to drive a (part privatised) coach and horses through Labour Party Policy.
Happily - and understandably - the CWU are not complacent and are organising a National Rally and Lobby at noon tomorrow in Central Hall, Westminster.
Full details of the CWU campaign are online here, including a model motion and a link to an online petition. The CWU are affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee who are fully backing this campaign, as are the many MPs who have signed Early Day Motion 428.
This is a vital campaign for the future of the labour movement and deserves the support of all trade unionists.
It's easy to become punch drunk with the sheer reactionary stupidity of New Labour and to stop being angry that the Government is willing to drive a (part privatised) coach and horses through Labour Party Policy.
Happily - and understandably - the CWU are not complacent and are organising a National Rally and Lobby at noon tomorrow in Central Hall, Westminster.
Full details of the CWU campaign are online here, including a model motion and a link to an online petition. The CWU are affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee who are fully backing this campaign, as are the many MPs who have signed Early Day Motion 428.
This is a vital campaign for the future of the labour movement and deserves the support of all trade unionists.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Report from the UNISON Development and Organisation Committee
Half term is over now, so back to blogging...
Here is my personal report to Greater London Region UNISON Branches from the recent special meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee of the UNISON NEC.
Personal report from the Development and Organisation Committee 10 February 2009
The Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) held a special meeting on Tuesday 10 February to consider responses to consultation on Service Group and Branch Structures.
The Review of Service Group and Branch Structures
The consultation process had been deeply flawed and this was reflected in a very low response rate from branches. However, there had been some further consultation and this had been reflected in some changes to the proposals discussed previously.
In particular, the proposal to merge the Energy and Water Service groups, which had been opposed by those Service Groups has been dropped, at least for the time being, and the foolish proposal to move members employed in schools out of the Local Government Service Group has also been abandoned.
The proposals which were agreed by the Committee, and subsequently by the NEC, for submission to Conference fall into two categories. First there are Rule Amendments to vary our Service Group structures, creating a Water, Environment and Transport Service Group, a Community Service Group (for the community and voluntary sector); a Further and Higher Education Service Group and a Police and Justice Service Group.
It was reported to the Committee that members affected by these proposals were broadly in support, although I knew from branches in the Region that the position was somewhat more mixed and complicated that was being reported. It will now be for National Delegate Conference to decide whether to give a two thirds majority to these proposals.
The second group of Rule Amendments, which will directly affect all our members, relate to the respective roles of Service Groups and Sectors within the Union. The essence of these proposals are to delegate to Sectors the autonomy over pay and conditions currently delegated to Service Groups. Whilst these proposals do reflect developments in the Union since Vesting Day in 1993, and also the decisions of National Delegate Conference 2007, they create the potential for a democratic deficit, since Service Group Conferences would no longer be able to discuss pay and conditions issues (as these would be reserved for Sectors).
I proposed a Rule Amendment that would have introduced the possibility of Sector Conferences to address this deficit, but this suggestion did not command support. The Committee Chair and a majority of the Committee did accept some alternative and additional Rule Amendments which I suggested, giving Service Groups a continuing role in overseeing the work of Sectors and clarifying the powers of the NEC in relation to cross service group work and the democratic accountability of Sectors.
The position of the majority of the Committee was that it would be sufficient for the NEC to issue guidelines on the democratic accountability of Sectors. – a view which I do not share. Branches will be able to make decisions about this when we see the full Preliminary Agenda for Conference, and again Rule Amendments will require a two thirds majority.
Other issues
The Committee also agreed changes to the Regional Pool guidelines to align the allocation of funds to the joint region/branch assessments process. It was also agreed that because of delays in the consultation process on the Review of UNISON’s Democratic Structures an interim report on progress to date will be submitted to the Conference with a view to a full report and recommendations being submitted in 2010.
Here is my personal report to Greater London Region UNISON Branches from the recent special meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee of the UNISON NEC.
Personal report from the Development and Organisation Committee 10 February 2009
The Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) held a special meeting on Tuesday 10 February to consider responses to consultation on Service Group and Branch Structures.
The Review of Service Group and Branch Structures
The consultation process had been deeply flawed and this was reflected in a very low response rate from branches. However, there had been some further consultation and this had been reflected in some changes to the proposals discussed previously.
In particular, the proposal to merge the Energy and Water Service groups, which had been opposed by those Service Groups has been dropped, at least for the time being, and the foolish proposal to move members employed in schools out of the Local Government Service Group has also been abandoned.
The proposals which were agreed by the Committee, and subsequently by the NEC, for submission to Conference fall into two categories. First there are Rule Amendments to vary our Service Group structures, creating a Water, Environment and Transport Service Group, a Community Service Group (for the community and voluntary sector); a Further and Higher Education Service Group and a Police and Justice Service Group.
It was reported to the Committee that members affected by these proposals were broadly in support, although I knew from branches in the Region that the position was somewhat more mixed and complicated that was being reported. It will now be for National Delegate Conference to decide whether to give a two thirds majority to these proposals.
The second group of Rule Amendments, which will directly affect all our members, relate to the respective roles of Service Groups and Sectors within the Union. The essence of these proposals are to delegate to Sectors the autonomy over pay and conditions currently delegated to Service Groups. Whilst these proposals do reflect developments in the Union since Vesting Day in 1993, and also the decisions of National Delegate Conference 2007, they create the potential for a democratic deficit, since Service Group Conferences would no longer be able to discuss pay and conditions issues (as these would be reserved for Sectors).
I proposed a Rule Amendment that would have introduced the possibility of Sector Conferences to address this deficit, but this suggestion did not command support. The Committee Chair and a majority of the Committee did accept some alternative and additional Rule Amendments which I suggested, giving Service Groups a continuing role in overseeing the work of Sectors and clarifying the powers of the NEC in relation to cross service group work and the democratic accountability of Sectors.
The position of the majority of the Committee was that it would be sufficient for the NEC to issue guidelines on the democratic accountability of Sectors. – a view which I do not share. Branches will be able to make decisions about this when we see the full Preliminary Agenda for Conference, and again Rule Amendments will require a two thirds majority.
Other issues
The Committee also agreed changes to the Regional Pool guidelines to align the allocation of funds to the joint region/branch assessments process. It was also agreed that because of delays in the consultation process on the Review of UNISON’s Democratic Structures an interim report on progress to date will be submitted to the Conference with a view to a full report and recommendations being submitted in 2010.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Put People First
OK it's a bit anodyne as a slogan - and reminds me of "Make People Matter" for those with long memories, but it's a good point really - the trade unions stand on the side of concern for the humans and not the markets.
Anyway, while you're waiting for me to find time to write up my report of the longest single day NEC meeting since I was elected in 2003 click here and find out about the TUC demonstration called to mark the arrival in London of the "G20" - and put Saturday 28 March in your diary!
We need to have a mass turnout to show that the trade union movement will be organising to try to prevent working people from being made to pay for a crisis which is not of our making.
Anyway, while you're waiting for me to find time to write up my report of the longest single day NEC meeting since I was elected in 2003 click here and find out about the TUC demonstration called to mark the arrival in London of the "G20" - and put Saturday 28 March in your diary!
We need to have a mass turnout to show that the trade union movement will be organising to try to prevent working people from being made to pay for a crisis which is not of our making.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Review of UNISON Bargaining Structures - the good, the bad and the ugly
This blog post is long and assumes a fair degree of knowledge of UNISON structures. This reflects the interests of regular readers (Sid and Doris Blogger) and also the fact that our bargaining structures matter a great deal to the effectiveness and democracy of our trade union. Those wanting more excitement may wish to look away now…
The report on Service Group and Branch Structures Implementation going to Tuesday’s Development and Organisation Committee in respect of the review of UNISON’s bargaining structures (agreed by Conference 2007) could have been worse. It could however also be a lot better.
The good.
I'll start with the good points.
The single most absurd proposal which had emerged from Mabledon Place, to take schools staff out of the Local Government Service Group, has been abandoned. Equally the proposal to enforce merger upon the unwilling Energy and Water and Environment Service Groups has been dropped, at least for now, although this is still seen as an objective “once consensus is reached.” (It would be churlish to ask what will happen if consensus is not reached…)
What’s more – and even more importantly – the Committee is being recommended to propose to the NEC a series of Rule Amendments which, of necessity, have to be moved separately, which will permit Conference to choose to accept or reject particular proposals.
(The individual Rule Amendments do not depend upon each other and it would certainly be a very odd decision if the SOC were to decide that they had to be taken together just because they all come from the same report.)
Continuing with the good news, the proposal to create a Community and Voluntary Sector(CVS) Service Group is something we should almost certainly have done ten years ago. Mind you, looking at things from the perspective of the Greater London Region it is pretty clear that we need dedicated voluntary sector branches if we are going to organise CVS members effectively in many instances – and these branches will need a special funding regime if they are to organise effectively on a multi-employer basis across large geographical areas. A CVS Service Group Executive (and CVS representatives on the NEC) will be in a position to argue for this necessary approach.
Similarly the new “Police and Justice” Service Group, bringing together Police and Probation Staff, the new “Water, Environment and Transport” Service Group and the new “Further and Higher Education” Service Group all have an underlying logic and, given the support of the members concerned, represent sensible amendments to our structures.
The bad.
On the other side of the balance sheet, I don’t think that any of the proposed recommendations really go far enough yet to address the problem, identified in the report, of the democratic accountability of sectors within the Union. The report says that; “Democratic accountability of sectors needs to be strengthened and as part of the implementation process the NEC, in consultation with service groups, will issue guidelines to ensure consistency across the groups” but the draft Conference motion attached to the report fails to deal with this vital question (indeed as things stand I am not sure I see the point of the Conference motion at all).
In the absence of some positive proposals for accountability of bargaining units to the members they represent I am not personally convinced of the desirability of proposed amendments to Rules D.3.1.4 (concerning the role of Service Groups) and D.3.7 (on the role of sectors) as they are being recommended at present.
I think we run the risk of taking accountability for bargaining away from bodies which can at least be held to account (Service Group Executives, which are largely directly elected and accountable to their Conferences) and giving the responsibility to bodies which do not at present have collective channels of accountability (Sector Committees).
I am pleased to see that the report does not propose any specific enhancement to the role of the Service Group Liaison Committee but since that Committee, as presently constituted, also lacks any collective channel of accountability to our membership, I don’t think that leaving things as they are is satisfactory either.
Since Conference instructed the NEC to “ensure democratic accountability” in cross service group working this is a problem as there is no meaningful accountability at present, and this has been reflected (in my view) in our failure adequately to protect members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and our failure to secure pay rises above the rate of inflation for most members over the past two years. This isn’t only my view, Local Government Conference said much the same about the pensions dispute a couple of years ago.
From the point of view of the NJC Sector (UNISON’s majority part of the largest single pay bargaining group in the UK economy) the existing, wildly imperfect, structures have enabled the Local Government Conference to hold the pay negotiators to account and to issue them with instructions about the future conduct of negotiations. The changes proposed at the moment would remove from the Local Government Service Group Conference the authority to take such decisions, without giving that authority to any similar body of delegates elected by, and accountable to, the members in the bargaining group. A cynical reader of the report might almost think that officers don’t welcome criticism from the Local Government Conference.
The draft Conference motion puts it quite accurately when it expresses the desire to give equal roles and responsibilities to all who bargain on behalf of our members. Without specific proposals to ensure the collective accountability of the negotiating body in each sector to the membership upon behalf of whom they negotiate this aspiration to equality for our negotiators doesn’t offer much of value to our members, if that equality is an equality of distance from accountability to the elected representatives of the members upon behalf of whom they are negotiating.
The ugly.
The process leading to the last minute submission of this report to a Committee meeting the day before the NEC meeting which will have to agree submissions to National Delegate Conference following a "consultation" process in which a document was issued to branches with no information about how to respond, to whom or by what deadline was not pretty.
I have previously expressed my dissatisfaction with the way in which members have been consulted on these proposals. My provisional status as a “grumpy old man” on this issue has probably been assisted by receiving the report to Tuesday’s meeting on Friday evening. If I tried to put a major report to my Branch Committee at that short notice the Chair would rule it out of order.
I really have no idea why we have to do things at the last minute when we are a national trade union with considerable resources which is supposed to be implementing Conference decisions more than eighteen months old.
Tuesday’s report comments, somewhat defensively to this reader, that the consultation on new configurations is “overdue rather than hasty” whereas I think the point is that it is both at once.
It is tempting to oppose everything when it is put before decisionmakers at the last minute and on the basis of deeply flawed consultation.
However I think that it makes sense to start from the interests of UNISON members and to accept or reject each specific proposal based upon this benchmark and upon the success or failure of the report in meeting the instructions given to the NEC by Conference 2007.
I’ll blog further about this important question after Tuesday’s meeting.
The report on Service Group and Branch Structures Implementation going to Tuesday’s Development and Organisation Committee in respect of the review of UNISON’s bargaining structures (agreed by Conference 2007) could have been worse. It could however also be a lot better.
The good.
I'll start with the good points.
The single most absurd proposal which had emerged from Mabledon Place, to take schools staff out of the Local Government Service Group, has been abandoned. Equally the proposal to enforce merger upon the unwilling Energy and Water and Environment Service Groups has been dropped, at least for now, although this is still seen as an objective “once consensus is reached.” (It would be churlish to ask what will happen if consensus is not reached…)
What’s more – and even more importantly – the Committee is being recommended to propose to the NEC a series of Rule Amendments which, of necessity, have to be moved separately, which will permit Conference to choose to accept or reject particular proposals.
(The individual Rule Amendments do not depend upon each other and it would certainly be a very odd decision if the SOC were to decide that they had to be taken together just because they all come from the same report.)
Continuing with the good news, the proposal to create a Community and Voluntary Sector(CVS) Service Group is something we should almost certainly have done ten years ago. Mind you, looking at things from the perspective of the Greater London Region it is pretty clear that we need dedicated voluntary sector branches if we are going to organise CVS members effectively in many instances – and these branches will need a special funding regime if they are to organise effectively on a multi-employer basis across large geographical areas. A CVS Service Group Executive (and CVS representatives on the NEC) will be in a position to argue for this necessary approach.
Similarly the new “Police and Justice” Service Group, bringing together Police and Probation Staff, the new “Water, Environment and Transport” Service Group and the new “Further and Higher Education” Service Group all have an underlying logic and, given the support of the members concerned, represent sensible amendments to our structures.
The bad.
On the other side of the balance sheet, I don’t think that any of the proposed recommendations really go far enough yet to address the problem, identified in the report, of the democratic accountability of sectors within the Union. The report says that; “Democratic accountability of sectors needs to be strengthened and as part of the implementation process the NEC, in consultation with service groups, will issue guidelines to ensure consistency across the groups” but the draft Conference motion attached to the report fails to deal with this vital question (indeed as things stand I am not sure I see the point of the Conference motion at all).
In the absence of some positive proposals for accountability of bargaining units to the members they represent I am not personally convinced of the desirability of proposed amendments to Rules D.3.1.4 (concerning the role of Service Groups) and D.3.7 (on the role of sectors) as they are being recommended at present.
I think we run the risk of taking accountability for bargaining away from bodies which can at least be held to account (Service Group Executives, which are largely directly elected and accountable to their Conferences) and giving the responsibility to bodies which do not at present have collective channels of accountability (Sector Committees).
I am pleased to see that the report does not propose any specific enhancement to the role of the Service Group Liaison Committee but since that Committee, as presently constituted, also lacks any collective channel of accountability to our membership, I don’t think that leaving things as they are is satisfactory either.
Since Conference instructed the NEC to “ensure democratic accountability” in cross service group working this is a problem as there is no meaningful accountability at present, and this has been reflected (in my view) in our failure adequately to protect members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and our failure to secure pay rises above the rate of inflation for most members over the past two years. This isn’t only my view, Local Government Conference said much the same about the pensions dispute a couple of years ago.
From the point of view of the NJC Sector (UNISON’s majority part of the largest single pay bargaining group in the UK economy) the existing, wildly imperfect, structures have enabled the Local Government Conference to hold the pay negotiators to account and to issue them with instructions about the future conduct of negotiations. The changes proposed at the moment would remove from the Local Government Service Group Conference the authority to take such decisions, without giving that authority to any similar body of delegates elected by, and accountable to, the members in the bargaining group. A cynical reader of the report might almost think that officers don’t welcome criticism from the Local Government Conference.
The draft Conference motion puts it quite accurately when it expresses the desire to give equal roles and responsibilities to all who bargain on behalf of our members. Without specific proposals to ensure the collective accountability of the negotiating body in each sector to the membership upon behalf of whom they negotiate this aspiration to equality for our negotiators doesn’t offer much of value to our members, if that equality is an equality of distance from accountability to the elected representatives of the members upon behalf of whom they are negotiating.
The ugly.
The process leading to the last minute submission of this report to a Committee meeting the day before the NEC meeting which will have to agree submissions to National Delegate Conference following a "consultation" process in which a document was issued to branches with no information about how to respond, to whom or by what deadline was not pretty.
I have previously expressed my dissatisfaction with the way in which members have been consulted on these proposals. My provisional status as a “grumpy old man” on this issue has probably been assisted by receiving the report to Tuesday’s meeting on Friday evening. If I tried to put a major report to my Branch Committee at that short notice the Chair would rule it out of order.
I really have no idea why we have to do things at the last minute when we are a national trade union with considerable resources which is supposed to be implementing Conference decisions more than eighteen months old.
Tuesday’s report comments, somewhat defensively to this reader, that the consultation on new configurations is “overdue rather than hasty” whereas I think the point is that it is both at once.
It is tempting to oppose everything when it is put before decisionmakers at the last minute and on the basis of deeply flawed consultation.
However I think that it makes sense to start from the interests of UNISON members and to accept or reject each specific proposal based upon this benchmark and upon the success or failure of the report in meeting the instructions given to the NEC by Conference 2007.
I’ll blog further about this important question after Tuesday’s meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)