Personal Report of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) meeting 7/10/09

This is a personal report of edited highlights of the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting which took place on Wednesday 7 October 2009, which I have circulated to UNISON Branches in Greater London.

An official report is available online at http://www.unison.org.uk/activists/pages_view.asp?did=9503.

The meeting was chaired by Vice President Angela Lynes as our President, Gerry Gallagher was representing UNISON at the Conference of our Canadian sister union.

Organising update

There was generally good news from the Head of Organising and Recruitment, who was able to report that the Union is predicted to grow by 1.4% this year. One in five new members now join online – with 13,000 members having joined online since April. There remain issues about how members who join online are allocated to branches.

The report covered a number of specific organising projects and I asked in particular about the important three companies project. The project aims to work in partnership with our sister union from North America SEIU in order to recruit end organise the staff of three major private companies – Sohdexo, Compass and Aramark – that hold significant contracts in the public sector. We aim to test and employ SEIU organising and recruitment strategies and tactics in the care, cleaning and catering sectors. The Project Sponsor is our Deputy General Secretary, Keith Sonnet, and I will continue to ask about this project.

New Service Group Structures

A written report on the establishment of three new Service Groups did not materialise and the NEC received a verbal update. At July’s meeting we had agreed a process whereby Regions would consult branches about the correct Service Group into which members should be placed with a deadline for data transfer on the membership system by 30 September. We were told that this deadline had been met, but also that the Assistant General Secretary would be writing to Regional Secretaries urging them to contact branches again.

All health and local government branches should check the information which has been provided from Region as to which employers will fall within the new Community Service Group since mistakes have been made in some cases. I was one of the members who queried whether the NEC had taken a decision as to which members should be in which Service Group – the view being taken seems to be that in agreeing an administrative process for data transfer in July we have given NEC approval to the outcome of that process.

Public Sector Pay Negotiations

There was some debate around the report on public sector pay negotiations, which provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of negotiations over the pay of UNISON members and other public servants. To some extent this debate became a fruitless discussion as to whether there was any worthwhile difference between a pay freeze under the Tories or a 1% increase under (New) Labour (there clearly is a difference – 1%!)

I raised the question of how we should make use of evidence that the effective rate of inflation confronting low paid workers in particular is considerably higher than the “headline rate” of inflation.

The debate ranged wider than just pay, with references to the coming attacks upon public service pension schemes and to the estimated 12,000 redundancies in local government in recent months. The General Secretary reported that the TUC Public Services Liaison Group would be coordinating the trade union response to these threats, and had already agreed to rejuvenate the NHS Together coalition.

Equal Pay issues

As ever the report which the NEC received on Equal Pay cannot be reported on here in detail for legal reasons. However, having checked with the Vice-President I can confirm that I am allowed to tell you that the legal team got a very warm round of applause from the NEC for the report. More information is in the public domain.

A Million Voices for Change campaign

It was reported that UNISON’s interventions at the TUC, Labour Party Conference – and at the Tory Party Conference – had been part of the Million Voices campaign which the General Secretary had launched at National Delegate Conference.

In promoting the campaign to the NEC Dave Prentis pointed out that we should be campaigning for higher taxes on the rich, and for money to be saved by cancelling Trident and ID cards. He also made clear that the first phase of the campaign had been the launch up to the Conference season and that we were now entering the second phase of building the campaign.

Early in the New Year the Union will need to assess how the campaign is going and, with a view to the next General Election, whether any Party has supported enough of our objectives in their manifesto. There will be no resumption of payments to individual Constituency Labour Parties under the Constituency Development Plans which were suspended by the Labour Link Committee in response to the General Secretary’s speech at Conference.

It was emphasised that thousands of UNISON members and others had signed up for this campaign (so that we couldn’t be told how many yet as they were coming in too fast to be counted). However to date only about 5% of UNISON branches had signed up to the campaign.

The Head of Policy, and the Chair of the Policy Committee, both stressed that this campaign was not intended simply to be a publicity campaign run from Head Office. The intention of the Million Voices campaign is that it becomes the vehicle for almost all UNISON activity over the coming months and that it should be used as a recruitment and organising tool.

Branches can sign up online to the campaign (as can individual members) – and all branches should have received a campaign pack. I would encourage all branches in Greater London to sign up to the campaign. I made the point that the campaign was entirely consistent with the People’s Charter which has been supported by the Trades Union Congress and that the two initiatives, which complement each other, can be supported together.

Further information about the Million Voices campaign will be available at the Greater London UNISON Regional Council meeting on Thursday 15 October, 10am at the University of London Union, Malet Street, WC1. Make sure your branch is represented in order to support this vital national campaign.

Collective responsibility

The NEC agreed a change to the way in which the NEC itself works, which I opposed (as part of a minority of 16 members outvoted by 35 of our colleagues). So that with effect from the next cycle of meetings, members of a committee may not challenge, speak against or oppose a decision or recommendation of that committee in full meetings of the NEC (although we will be permitted to abstain if we disagree).

I believed that this proposal ran counter to legal advice received by the NEC as recently as December last year (when we had been advised that NEC members are under a duty “when participating in the proceedings of the elected assembly, to express his or her own judgements, reach his or her own decisions and vote in accordance with her or her own assessment of the matters falling for decision.” However the Presidential Team did not consider that legal advice to be relevant and refused to circulate the report containing that advice to all members of the NEC.

Since from now on voting against the decision of an NEC Committee at the full NEC will lead to “a review of committee membership by the Presidential Team and potential removal of the individual from the relevant committee, subject to endorsement by the NEC”, I will report back to branches in Greater London should it appear that I may find myself in this position.

I found it disappointing that in a full meeting at which we were addressing the vital issues affecting the interests of our members we had to spend ninety minutes on this diversion. A number of my NEC colleagues feel very strongly about this issue however and seemed to think that this decision will mean that we need not consider the question again (whereas I fear that the reverse will be the case).

Staffing issues

The Chair of the NEC Staffing Committee gave a verbal report (but agreed to provide written reports in future). He dealt with the current recovery plan for the UNISON Staff Pension Scheme, which will be going out for a ballot of all scheme members to consider increasing employee contributions and make various changes intended to safeguard the future of the scheme.

It was confirmed that as there are no plans to increase the employer contributions there will be no financial implications for branches whose staff are members of the pension scheme.

Head Office Project

The building work on the site of the new Head Office for UNISON is visibly proceeding but is running four weeks behind schedule. It is hoped to keep the costs within the £72 Million allowed in the budget although it now appears that there is no prospect of bringing this figure back down to £70 Million.

Jon Rogers (NEC Greater London) j.rogers@unison.co.uk

Support the Postal Workers

The postal workers have decided to strike and need our wholehearted solidarity.

Extensive local action is already taking place.

I'll blog here as soon as I have details of where to send donations - UNISON branches should be inviting local CWU postal reps to our Branch Committees.

Update - the London Division of the CWU (where 12,500 members have taken up to 14 days of strike action) have set up a hardship fund;

The details of the fund are as follows:
CWU LONDON DIVISIONAL COMMITTEE – HARDSHIP FUND
Unity Trust Account No. 20232065
Sort Code: 086001

Please send donations to the address below:
Hardship Fund
c/o CWU London Divisional Committee
2nd Floor, 33-41 Dallington Street
London
EC1V 0BB
020 7336 8371 or 020 7336 8373

To ballot or not to ballot?

A hat tip to Darren (who should get his own blog!) for pointing out to me this story about how the RMT deal with privatised employers.

The RMT have a track record of getting good deals - and gaining members because they don't worry about whether they have exhausted internal procedures before they ballot for action.

This lunchtime I attended the largest Branch Committee meeting I have been at for a couple of years - called at short notice and attended in our lunch time so that we could endorse a request for a ballot for industrial action against the threat of redundancies.

That ballot request is eminently reasonable and based upon a sound approach to trying to win the best deal for our members. If our Regional Office is on board for UNISON's robust response to the economic crisis then we will be given the ballot we have asked for.

There is no law, and no UNISON policy, which says that you should exhaust procedures before balloting for action. Should occasional readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Congress-House) think that there is such a requirement then the comment box on this blog is open (as it may not be elsewhere).

Update on Friday morning - welcoming Darren to the blogosphere.

More on the three companies project

In earlier posts I have commented upon the "three companies" project in which UNISON will be assisted by our sister union from the USA - the SEIU - to organise and recruit staff employed by three particular multinational companies.

In response to questions which I posed at the NEC I was advised that the Project Sponsor for this project is our Deputy General Secretary Keith Sonnet - who has promised me answers to further questions, about which I shall report back and/or blog in due course.

There are clearly many legitimate questions to ask about the SEIU's internal regime and its relations with other US trade unions - however I cannot see why any of these mean that UNISON should not seek to learn from the recruitment record of a trade union with an impressive record of growth.

UNISON is a lay led trade union in which dissent remains possible (and I will continue to dissent as necessary!)

I can't believe it's not Stalin!

In a fascinating insight into the psychology of those UNISON officials who have recently taken to anonymous blogging their focus in reporting on Wednesday's meeting of our NEC has been on a pointless ninety minute debate about "collective responsibility."

The official report of the NEC meeting is a far more balanced assessment of the important issues which were discussed.

Our NEC rightly spent a lot of time on public sector pay, on the "Million Voices" campaign and on a range of organising work - unfortunately we also had to spend time on a proposal (which I opposed) that members of NEC Committees may no long speak or vote - at the full NEC -against a recommendation from that Committee.

I shall blog a full report soon

Defend Private Sector Pensions

The ballot of UNITE members at Fujitsu is an important development in the fight to defend pensions in the private sector. (The dispute is also over jobs and pay).

TUC policy agreed this year as Composite 10 commits our movement to campaign to defend pension provision in the private and public sectors. This is also in line with UNISON Conference Policy.

We know that axes are being sharpened for our public service pension schemes - and it is vital that public sector workers rally to support private sector comrades fighting to defend decent pension provision. We all need decent pension provision.

The TUC did well to point out that some people are doing ok when it comes to pensions - but now we need to see the Campaign for which Congress called.

A glimmer of hope?

It is unquestionably good news that the Health Secretary has expressed the view that the NHS should be the "preferred provider" of health services. This has rightly been described on a leading health worker's blog as "a glimmer of hope."

This statement has also been welcomed by the semi-official anonymous blog recently set up by some UNISON officials though without perhaps giving UNISON the credit we appear to deserve for this development.

Of course I think the NHS should be the only (not just the preferred!) provider - and I am cynical in the extreme about any deathbed conversions to public services on the part of New Labour. Nevertheless we should use every tool we are given to defend public services - which includes making the most of statements such as this by Government Ministers (even those who do not have a long shelf-life).

Sometimes the best way to know whether you like something is to check out who hates it!

And if the public sector is the best provider of health services (and we are) then what about education, housing, social care and many other public services?

Cut back on real waste in our public services...

Readers of this blog who still also enjoy the old media (Sid and Doris Grauniad-reader) may just about notice a short letter today making the point that whereas public sector salaries are generally out in the open, this is not always true of the earnings of consultants.

Though amongst the brief and witty letters, the point I am trying to make is so serious as to be almost unfunny. At the moment I'm working with some shop stewards to deal with the threat of redundancies arising from a reorganisation which would save £100k a year - developed by external consultants who appear to have cost the organisation £400k already.

I don't have a problem with bringing in outside expertise where you need it (I think it is something that the trade union should be more willing to do for example). However I have serious concerns about the practice of bringing in consultants (often costing more than £500 a day) and paying them to do the core work of an organisation - or to take responsibility for contentious issues such as redundancies and privatisation.

UNISON has recently exposed this problem in transport and further education as well as local government.

One simple demand we must make is that the hourly rate of each consultant should be as much a matter of public record as the job-evaluated salaries of employees. This will not of itself lead to a reduction in the misuse of consultants by our employers, but it will be a helpful step.

The people who know how to improve public services are the people who deliver them day to day - not those who make a nice living out of cutting jobs and moving on.

ALMO = Dodo?

Let's start with a well deserved hat tip to John at Barnet for this news.

Hillingdon Council are to look into bringing their housing service back in house and consigning their ALMO to the past (where they all belong).

Hillingdon have spotted that an in-house service will be better able to co-ordinate with the rest of the Council, and that there will be savings from the expense of setting up the (pretend democratic) governance of an Arms Length Management Organisation.

UNISON Conference Policy is that “council housing should be a central component” in addressing housing need. TUC policy - agreed as Composite 13 this year - is that local authorities should be the “primary deliverers of social housing”.

Therefore whilst many UNISON branches have to seek a constructive working relationship with an ALMO whilst it employs many of our members - our objective should be to see ALMOs go the way of the Dodo. However the threat of privatisation will continue (particularly where Council housing stands on prime real estate) and we will need to continue to work with tenants against this ever present menace.

The senior managers in many ALMOs will have a vested interest in resisting a return to local authority control and will be likely to favour a stock transfer into the wonderful world of high pay and bonuses for the Chief Executives of Housing Associations...

How do we learn from other trade unions?

Squabbles between trade unions are rarely pretty.

I am pleased that the chorus of complaints about the GMB which used to be so frequent in UNISON meetings is now somewhat reduced (even if we're not going to get into bed together any time soon!) When trade unions fall out there is usually wrong on both sides and the beneficiaries are rarely the members of the unions.

So I am cautious when reading criticisms of a trade union from officials of another union.

However this US website, hosted by American hotel workers union UNITE HERE does seem to indicate that there are real concerns about the conduct of the leadership of the Service Employees International Union (to whom we in UNISON may be about to turn for help and advice).

There is much that we can learn from trade unions in other countries - but probably by cherrypicking the best of their ideas which we can apply to the circumstances in which we find ourselves, rather than borrowing a particular approach wholesale.

And there are fast growing trade unions much closer to our home in London WC1 from whom we could learn a fair bit!

Democracy, Leadership and Debate

Having had to read up a bit on debates in the US Labor Movement which may have some relevance to us in the UK, I was struck by this description of the attitude of the leaders of our sister union the SEIU by one critic;

" (they) would have the whole union leadership, top to bottom, local and international, elective and appointive, acting as one monolithic bloc, speaking to the membership with one united voice in favor of the official line."

This is pretty much the conception of collective responsibility favoured by the majority of my colleagues on UNISON's NEC (although happily not the approach of UNISON's Rule Book).

In the latest "clarification" of "collective responsibility" next week's NEC meeting will be asked to endorse a recommendation that members of a Committee of the NEC may neither speak nor vote against any proposals from that Committee to the full NEC (although in a minor concession we will be permitted to abstain!)

This measure is intended to eliminate "duplication of debate" but threaten to create an absurd position in which a minority could become a majority if the minority happened to have a majority on a particular Committee.

I can see nothing in UNISON's Rules which entitles the NEC to instruct its members how to vote at NEC meetings - and I think that stifling of dissent and debate can only weaken our Union.

I have asked if the Union will ensure that all NEC members are provided with relevant legal advice received by the Development and Organisation Committee at its December 2008 meeting. I will let you know if this request is accepted, and also how the vote goes. (I'll also go on expressing my own views as well as reporting on decisions whether or not I agree with them).

I do think we need to be careful to safeguard our lay democracy (including the right to express dissenting views) - it appears that our friends across the pond are learning this?

Three's company?

The "3 companies project" on which UNISON is or will be working with the Service Employees International Union has given rise to comment - some favourable and some questioning. (All anonymous though!) It's about recruiting and organising members in three large multinationals with a track record of chasing public service contracts - which seems to me to be exactly the sort of initiative which we need to be taking.

Since I prefer things out in the open I have asked the following questions about the project ahead of next week's NEC meeting and will publish the answers;

* When did this project commence?
* Who is the project sponsor?
* Who is the project manager?
* What are the arrangements for governance of this project?
* What are the arrangement for lay oversight of this project? (Has it been reported on in any detail to any NEC Committee for example?)
* What is the budget for this project?
* What financial or other contribution is being made by the SEIU?
* Will we be recruiting members to UNISON or the SEIU?
* How many members do we have in these three companies?
* In which branches are these members?
* How are the lay leadership of these branches engaged in this project?

I have no reason to question the wisdom of teaming up with a Union with an impressive record of growth in order to learn from their experiences - and I cannot see any reason why the way in which we do this should not be transparent to our membership and activists. We certainly need to improve the engagement of lay activists in our private sector work.

The lady vanishes...

When I heard that a lollipop lady had vanished from UNISON's Labour Conference delegation I was of course deeply concerned that a vigorous approach to collective responsibility and internal union discipline might have got out of hand.

It turns out that this is just an amusing gimmick to promote our Million Voices for Change campaign.

The progressive aspirations which inform our campaign are essentially the same as the objectives of the TUC-supported Peoples Charter.

Not every UNISON branch can afford to produce an ice-sculpture to catch the attention of jaded delegates at a political Conference - but we can all buy a pasting table and get out petitioning at a weekend or outside workplaces (or for that matter inside workplaces).

The Charter could be a valuable tool to build UNISON's campaign as well as demonstrating - across the breadth of our movement and beyond - the popular support for socialist politics which fails to find a voice from the leadership of any of the major parties.

I hope that this is the direction in which the campaign can now be taken. After all, Miss Froy was quite capable of acting alone - as UNISON is - but she still sought allies from those travelling in the same direction.

No Justice for Jean?

Our Union rightly expresses the concerns of our members about gun and knife crime in our communities.

We need to be equally concerned when the guns are in the hands of people in uniform - as in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, for whose death no one will now be held to account.

If you have not already done so please sign the online petition in support of the permanent memorial at Stockwell tube station.

The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may have decided not to take account of the criticisms and conclusions of the Coroner about the failings by the police four years ago - but local people and trade unionists can at the least ensure that this murder is never forgotten.

Why do I do it?

As I have been getting ready for next week's UNISON NEC meeting I have been remembering the words of a senior national official who told me recently that the NEC was failing in its task to scrutinise the conduct of officials.

As a vocal critic of shortcomings in what you might call the governance of our trade union I have taken this very much to heart and am therefore using the procedures available to me as an NEC member to ask questions and seek answers.

You can read more here in due course.

Whilst doing this I have taken inspiration from this very interesting interview with Dan Gallin, of whom I had not heard before but now consider a significant and important thinker about the future of our movement.

Hat tip to the New Unionism Network.

I am reminded why I do spend so much time on trade union activity when someone says;

"The point is to nurture and strengthen the politics of radical democracy, the particular strand of socialist politics which I believe is the authentic Marxism, which insists that power, where it matters, always has to remain in the hands of the workers. Today this means almost all of society, since nearly everybody is part of the working class, whether they know it or not. To get there, you have to start from the bottom, the point of production, and then build democratic institutions, like democratic unions, impose democratic procedures at every level, democratize the decision-making mechanism in public administration. We don't want to abolish bureaucracy if bureaucracy means administration, we all need administration and we want it to be honest, transparent and efficient, in our own organizations to start with, then in society at large. We want an administration built on our key values: justice and freedom. These will be the values of the society of the future - if we make it that far."

Labour Party Democracy?

In what regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will immediately recognise as a triumph of hope over experience I am hopeful that the trade union vote at Labour Party Conference will support the direct election of members of the National Policy Forum (NPF).

This would be useful since the left is able to get candidates elected to the directly-elected constituency section of the National Executive Council but is frozen out of the indirect election to the National Policy Forum which - since New Labour began - has largely usurped the policy making role of Conference.

Those few of us in UNISON who still believe that something good might possibly be done with our relationship with the Labour Party (and who are therefore prepared to be honest about our political affiliations) must hope for a better composition of the NPF if we are to stand a chance of winning the Party to our policies.

Whether any of this now matters, and whether the Party now meeting in Brighton can make any meaningful difference for UNISON members is of course itself now very much open to debate.

Update on Friday - on this occasion hope did in fact triumph over experience.

Rage Against New Labour?

I myself found the weather today just too nice to manage "rage" against New Labour - given the heat I preferred icy contempt for the disgraceful creatures who are in charge of this reactionary Government.

For a good report (with pictures of the demo) visit HarpyMarx.

The tragedy of our politics (and of the total failure to date of the trade unions to address the crisis of representation of our class) is that - as was pointed out at the Labour Against the War fringe - it was precisely the ancestors of the progressive protesters outside this year's Labour Party Conference who constituted the social forces that created the Party in the first place.

For their betrayal of the aspirations of our founders, perhaps New Labour do deserve our rage - but maybe we should be tough not only on New Labour but also on the causes of New Labour?

Update (later) on Monday morning - there is a good report of the demonstration in today's Morning Star.

Labour Against the War

The annual Labour Party Conference fringe meeting of Labour Against the War was as good as ever in terms of the contributions from the platform (if not in the attendance this year).

Christine Shawcroft exposed very effectively the stitching up of contributions at Conference, Milan Rai argued persuasively that New Labour foreign policy has been lawless and subordinate to the USA and Jeremy Corbyn (rightly introduced by the Chair, Alan Simpson, as the best Foreign Secretary we have never had) reminded us that Labour Governments generally have had a very poor record on international issues.

There can be little doubt that amongst the many terrible and stupid things that have been done by the shower who have been running the Labour Party into the ground in recent years, the support for bloody imperialist wars stands out as the most damaging of betrayals.

I got involved in politics not just because I am Labour but also because I am against war and for peace. New Labour warmongering has certainly been the worst element of the past decade and has lost us so many members (and if it won us any they have not been worth having).

Congratulations to UNISON Labour Link

As I head out in the sunshine to join the happy crowd of trade unionists here to welcome our Party in Government to the Conference at which it makes plans to win the next General Election I remember the wisdom of the UNISON Labour Link Committee in 2007. I recall the Chair saying that; “We need an election-winning team to face down the Conservatives.” And that “Despite policy differences, Gordon can win an election for Labour.”

How wise we were as trade unions not to lift a finger to encourage MPs to have a contest for Labour Leader in 2007 - ensuring that the Parliamentary Labour Party stayed on message and gave its overwhelming endorsement to our own Dear Leader. How prescient were our leaders in realising that solid support for Gordon would be repaid by his adoption of so much of our policy agenda.

Imagine if our leaders had been so foolish as to show even the slightest support for the candidate of the Left at that time!

Had that happened a debate around policy issues might have pushed the Labour Party in Government back towards a broadly social democratic and left of centre political agenda - instead of the wonderfully popular mix of projected spending cuts, social authoritarianism and militarism which now seems certain to deliver a historic fourth term.

Congratulations are due not only to the Labour Link Committee but to all those General Secretaries of the big unions who have held to the "steady as she goes" political project which has delivered - and will deliver - such significant results for trade union members.

No wonder the supporters of Gordon Brown in our trade union are proud to reveal their Labour Party membership when seeking election to our National Executive Council. They have done so well.

There is no need for public spending cuts

I looked in on the Convention of the Left today. The Convention is a well-intentioned forum for debate between socialists which is no bad thing.

However it was slightly frustrating that the grassroots approach of not having platform speakers meant that the excellent contribution of Prem Sikka - the professor of Accountancy who is on our side - was squeezed in at the end of the opening plenary.

Prem explained that there is no need for public spending cuts - but rather for tax increases and a clampdown on tax avoidance. The LRC will be campaigning around this point this week.

Whilst many of those at today's Convention are focused upon the next election a more immediate focus is the need to mobilise trade unionists in particular to oppose spending cuts and their consequences. To do this we must educate our members in economics so that it is understood that there is an alternative.

UNISON branches can now use the Million Voices campaign alongside the Peoples Charter to good effect to prepare ourselves for these coming battles.

Outside the Westminster bubble (specially exported to Brighton for the next few days and now comprising the Conference Centre and the two main seafront hotels) we need to mobilise resistance to cuts and attacks on working people.

How are we to defend our members?

I am sat in a deeply frustrating discussion at the Regional Local Government Committee where numerous branches are expressing discontent about the obstacles which are placed in the way of members wishing to take industrial action.

There is no doubt that the anti-trade union laws pose real difficulties for us. Even the most combative trade unions are often forced by legal action to reballot or delay action.

In UNISON however we are so cautious that we place all the obstacles in our own way first of all. Where there are perceptions that some officials are reluctant to support strike action by members there is then endless scope for fruitless argument - and while we delay our bargaining position weakens and our members are left worse off.

Eventually we have arrived at some sensible suggestions to look at briefings for branches on how to organise industrial action and also to review and comment upon the forms which branches have to complete when requesting ballots.

However the problem is political not procedural. What is wrong in our Region is the mistaken believe that all procedures should always be exhausted before industrial action is contemplated. There is no legal or procedural requirement for this overly cautious approach which is not the best use of the tactic of industrial action.

SEIU -v- UNITE HERE and comments in the UK

I have no wish to become involved in disputes within the US Labour movement - when we get a decent movement in this country that fights for its members I'll begin to feel able to preach in that way!

However, in response to a comment on this blog arising from a report in Tribune I have been to have a look at what is going on.

Some people are critical of the Service Employees International Union for their organising tactics - which are seen as too close to the employers.

Others defend the SEIU.

I do not know the rights and wrongs of this - but if the SEIU are in the right then they are ill served by the support of anonymous bloggers who act as cheerleaders for the UNISON leadership who have comprehensively failed to mobilise the strength of our 1.3 million members.

The POA and the anti-union laws

As a good delegate who can observe collective responsibility when it is appopriate (as opposed to other occasions - of which more later) I voted in line with UNISON policy at the TUC - which meant my hand was one of the forest of hands that voted down Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association.

The POA may be unlikely poster boys (and girls) for the left but the combined effect of prison privatisation (a Tory policy pursued with relish by the Tories of New Labour); a de facto ban on effective industrial action and a principled leadership committed to trade unionism and equality have combined to produce - in the POA - a strong and leftwing trade union.

Motion 7 - which called for (unlawful) strike action to break the anti-union laws - had sound intentions but invited tactical criticism, expressed by a PCS delegate who argued that members would not be mobilised to oppose the anti-union laws themselves, but would come to see the necessity for unlawful action if the laws were used unjustly to block action on issues of pressing concern to the membership (such as attacks on jobs or pensions).

I understand that the POA were inspired to put Motion 7 before Congress by what they heard from the Justice Secretary when he spoke to them. (Certainly the Government's treatment of the POA has very little to do with justice!)

One of the most lamentable failures of the New Labour period which is now coming to its miserable end has been the failure of the trade unions to reverse the anti-union laws introduced under Thatcher and Major. Under a future Tory Government we can now expect further restrictions on our rights - at the same time as a major onslaught upon jobs, pensions and public services.

In a couple of years time many UNISON members may be confronting major challenges with restrictions on our right to take action similar to those which now face the POA.

If we won't then confront the anti-union laws, even at the risk of every asset of our Union, what will we do to fight for our rights?

A Million Voices for Change - a million signatures to show we are serious

The TUC voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Peoples' Charter last Thursday.

This was a result for all those of us who want the union movement to break out of the political impotence and irrelevance which our leaders have all but celebrated for the past decade.

It was also to the credit of the politically astute souls in the RMT who accepted an amendment from UNITE which may have been intended as a wrecking amendment but which in fact strengthened and focused the position of support for the Charter, leaving in the commitment to work for a million signatures on the charter whilst also pressing for action in the Labour Party (about which the RMT had been uncharacteristically reticent).

Once leftwingers in UNITE had corrected a wobble about whether or not to withdraw the amendment (which had helped to ensure - for example - UNISON's support for the motion) the eventual outcome (support from the General Council - albeit with a a reservation - and then Congress) was predetermined.

UNISON activists can now correct any foolish perception upon the part of cynical souls that our "Million Voices for Change" campaign was ever intended as an establishment spoiler for the Charter (perish the thought!) Instead what we can now do is use the campaigning materials for the Million Voices campaign at branch level alongside the Charter itself.

After all, some of us on the political left are used to the criticism that we espouse causes on behalf of our members without their support - UNISON can now protect ourselves from any such criticism by integrating our Million Voices campaign with support for the Charter.

If we have a million voices for change - and I believe we do - then we can get a million signatures on the Charter which calls for that change. Mass support for the Charter will enable us to put pressure on politicians to join us in expressing that support if they want our votes.

From my perspective (as a Labour Party member who is not afraid to own up to that political affiliation when seeking office in our trade union, unlike some) I think that this can only be helpful in firming up the position of the better Labour candidates (of whom there are some) and helping us to campaign to protect as many as possible of the few socialist Parliamentarians we currently have to speak up for our class in the Palace of Westminster.

Catching up after the TUC...

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) may be fearing that I fell into an alcohol induced stupor towards the end of the TUC. In fact my absence from the blogosphere can be attributed to the later-than-usual TUC running straight into some birthday parties (the sort with cakes rather than booze!) and what with branch work I have fallen behind in my blogging.

However you can now keep up to date with the hyperactive (if still sadly - if not at all mysteriously - anonymous) "UNISON Active" site - where the dishonesty of one author in relation to myself is a fine example of one of the perennial obsessions of those in the TUC who fail to understand New Labour and what it is doing to our movement.

In a report from the UNISON delegation meeting the author who can't remember their own name to put on their blog post also misremembers my contribution to debate on the CWU motion (which predictably fell last Thursday) which called for a Conference of trade unions on political representation. It is suggested by the unnamed commentator that I agreed that the purpose of such a Conference was to pave the way for a "new workers' party" or some such.

This is of course neither what I said nor what I think (but sometimes it is easier to attack someone if unburdened by honesty or accuracy!) I generally take the view that as near-impossible it may be to reclaim the Labour Party for the working class, to build something new would be an even harder task!

What interests me about this attack is not so much what it reminds us about how much weight to put on anonymous comment as that it makes the attack of choice of the leadership of our movement upon any new and innovative ideas which seek to address the crisis of representation of our class (which even they now admit to).

The Peoples' Charter got the support of the TUC - but not before many people accused it (wrongly) of simply being a stalking horse for a new political party. The admirable Trade Union Co-ordinating Group has doubled in size in its first year, but at its inception was (wrongly) accused by Derek Simpson of being a stalking horse for a new political party.

And the CWU were accused - on the floor of Congress by the General Secretary himself - of signposting the way to a new political party.

I do not want to see a new political party. If one has to come into being it will signal a great defeat which will have arisen because of the foolishness and weakness of the leadership of the Labour movement (and the ignorance of their anonymous cheerleaders).

The bogeyman of a new political party is conjured up to distract us from trying to hold to account those responsible for our inadequate intervention in the Labour Party.

The important distinction in the movement is not between those who hold Labour Party cards and those who do not - it is between those who want to see a movement that fights for its members and those who have given up.

What's going on here then?

Today the Times Online is reporting that discussions about a UNISON GMB merger are ongoing.

Reading the report it sounds mostly as if a journalist has had a late night conversation with the well refreshed General Secretary of another trade union.

Certainly nothing of consequence has been reported to the UNISON NEC in the past year (since we had a joint social event at last year's TUC).

So, watch this space (but don't be disappointed if it stays empty).

I am certainly not sure that - as the Times reports "officials (of the two unions) also often work together and believe their culture is broadly compatible."

Unity is strength - but how do we get there?

Yesterday I went to the fringe meeting of the Trade Union Coordinating Group, launched at last year's TUC by four unions, and now co-ordinating the political work of eight unions.

The TUCG unions (PCS, the FBU, RMT, the NUJ, POA, BFAWU, NAPO and URTU) are getting beyond the splendid isolation often preferred by the largest unions and supporting one another in an assertive and combative way.

(In fact they are doing what the TUC should do but does not).

Within the biggest unions, which will not yet sign up to such an initiative, we need to build unity at a rank and file level - and the most important use of being at the TUC for a socialist is to renew contact with comrades in other unions, which will be particularly important given the scale of the coming onslaught upon our members.

Just as Gordon Brown's dreary speech offered far too little far too late to working people, so it is hard to believe in the fine content of some of the Composite Motions agreed this week.

Mark Serwotka pointed out yesterday that whereas when the unions stood together over pensions a few years ago we saw a more positive outcome than we would have - last year's Congress decision to take united action over pay was not implemented and we have ended up with lousy pay settlements as a result.

The unity we need is not so much at Congress (though that is good) but on the streets and picket lines.

The Sound of Silence

News reaches your blogger on the floor of Congress that the General Council voted by a narrow majority not to make a statement about Palestine (a draft of which had been circulated yesterday).

The draft GC statement represented a moderating of the positive position of the FBU motion 76 which reflects the policy of UNISON Conference (and calls for a boycott of Israeli goods and disinvestment from companies associated with the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist state).

On this occasion the General Council were right to restrain themselves from making a statement (which would - constitutionally - have taken precedence over the motion if agreed). This important debate (scheduled for the end of tomorrow afternoon) will now revolve around a GMB amendment to the FBU motion which seeks to water down our policy of support for the Palestinian people.

UNISON (I am pleased to say) is opposing the GMB and supporting the FBU on this question, as are the General Council.

Update - I have made an important amendment above on receipt of additional information (and also understand that there was a full and frank exchange of views between the General Secretary of the TUC (who may have been disappointed by the General Council decision) and a Mr Simpson from UNITE (putting in a rare appearance at the General Council) who expressed himself with characteristic courtesy and good humour.

Has Politics Failed?

I won't try to blog a blow by blow account of the official business of Congress, because you can see it on the telly (and follow debate elsewhere online) - but I will report from the more interesting debates that take place on the fringe.

Yesterday I went to the packed fringe meeting organised by the Institute of Employment Rights on the theme "Politics has failed - so how should unions respond?"

This debate - around the crisis of political representation of the working class - is now unavoidable (although plenty of people continue to try to avoid it - the no-longer-aptly-named "Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions" organised a fringe meeting calling for support for the Labour Party because of all the good things the Government has done!)

At the IER meeting speakers made generally thoughtful and intelligent contributions. Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association was angry and moving as ever (and all but announced his recent decision to leave the Labour Party for the Socialist Party). Mark Serwotka spoke convincingly about the likelihood that none of the main political parties will adopt any significant part of the programme adopted by our movement.

Len McCluskey was a rarity on the platform for arguing (as I would) that there is still a fight to be had in the Labour Party. John Hendy referred back to TUC policy in the run up to the 1906 election - when the TUC asked candidates in the election if they backed the policies of the trade unions. Those who say that the TUC could not take such action for some constitutional reason should have been there to here this persuasive contribution - the Peoples Charter (which UNISON will be supporting on Thursday) would provide precisely the basis upon which such questions could be put to candidates in the 2010 election, just as we did 104 years ago.

The trade union movement has the opportunity, in rebuilding our strength and political independence to assert real influence.

As a safety practitioner I would have to advise readers not to hold their breath however.

Liverpool Trades Council demonstration

After yesterday's delegation meeting a smattering of UNISON delegates joined a modest but positive march and rally organised by Liverpool Trades Council, addressed by a seemingly endless list of speakers promoting a variety of worthy causes. I don't have the time (or laptop battery life) to do justice to the range of contributions in this post.

Bob Crow, welcoming the rally on behalf of the RMT set the tone of his interventions for the coming week, pointing out that if the TUC fails to stand up for our members we will continue to lose power and influence (or as he put it with characteristic understatement - next year we could meet in a telephone box). Although the rally was not large it may well be useful to establish a Trades Council demonstration at the start of Congress for the future?

It was alarming that a handful of fascists had the confidence to stand a little way from the rally (the other side of a few police officers). The chilling arrogance of the Nazis is a reminder of the urgency of our campaigning against the far right - I'll blog a report later from the Unite Against Fascism fringe meeting.

TUC UNISON delegation meeting

Yesterday morning UNISON's delegation spent a couple of happy hours agreeing our policy on the motions coming up at Congress, which starts in a few minutes.

As ever most motions are supported - and the delegation endorsed all the recommendations of Saturday's Policy Committee meeting. I was in a (sometimes small) minority opposing those recommendations on three motions.

These were Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association which makes an audacious call for strike action against the anti-union laws, Motion 56 from the National Union of Teachers (which we are opposing largely I think because it calls for a national demonstration against unemployment and spending cuts ahead of the General Election) and Motion 84 from the Communication Workers Union on political representation.

That last debate was most interesting for what was not said. I argued that the crisis of representation of working people argued in favour of the CWU proposal for a trade union Conference to discuss political representation and for this to be organised across all trade unions. Although the majority were not swayed by this argument, no one contributed to claim that UNISON Labour Link are doing a grand job (as would have been said even a couple of years ago).

The question of political representation for our movement is posed very starkly now. The leadership of the big unions may duck the debate for one last year ahead of a General Election but we cannot go on avoiding the issue for ever.

TUC online

For those of you online but not at Congress you can now have your say at the new Congress Voices site which is well worth a visit.

Another recent addition to the blogosphere is UNISON Active which has impressive energy (and a quite witty preview of the TUC) but is a little bit anonymous for my tastes (I always worry when I read that something in UNISON is from a "progressive left" perspective as that is sometimes a coded reference to the sharpening of ice-picks, which is all just so last century!)

Come on UNISON activists - put your names to your blog posts and let's have open debate and discussion around the many important topics you are rightly highlighting :-)

TUC Composites

The Composites booklet for this week's TUC is now available.

I am pleased to see that UNISON is part of Composite 10 on pensions which commits the TUC to support defined benefit pension schemes across the public and private sectors with a “properly resourced and coordinated campaign”. Of course we may agree this and see little happen in reality – but agreeing this at least opens up the possibility of some effective action in line with UNISON Conference policy.

I am also pleased to see that we are now in Composite 13, seconding UCATT and supporting – again in line with our Conference policy – the view that local authorities should be the “primary deliverers of social housing”.

There is one area where a composite has yet to be agreed, around motions 48 to 51 on public services and public spending (including one UNISON motion and one of the motions on which UNISON's NEC policy Committee has not yet made a recommendation.

The timetable for Congress has also been published in the Congress Guide. Monday morning we debate support for the NHS and opposition to the BNP (with a demonstration of that opposition at the lunch break). Monday afternoon we consider pensions, public services, disability discrimination and health and safety.

Tuesday sees debate on learning and skills, organsing and more on public services and health and safety (including the motion on high heels which provoked a silly season Tory story. In the afternoon Congress will debate the financial system, steel, housing and the media.

Wednesday morning we will discuss the economy, transport and the Environment before an address from Ed Miliband, whilst the afternoon kicks off with Kate Allen from Amnesty followed by debates on vulnerable workers and the minimum wage, featuring a video link to the AFL-CIO Congress and the address of President Obama.

Thursday we traditionally mop up the remaining business but this year will see a couple of interesting debates first thing. The first will be on the PCS amendment to Motion 83 from the FDA which amendment advocates electoral reform. The second will be on the CWU motion (84) calling for a trade union Conference to consider political representation.

I'll blog as and when about what goes on during the week.

Hello Liverpool

I arrive today in Liverpool ahead of the TUC Congress. Tomorrow morning is the second (and quite probably final) meeting of this year's UNISON TUC delegation and we will be agreeing our policy positions on the various motions and amendments (and Composites) on the agenda.

As things stand, of the 85 motions on the Congress agenda, aside from the three motions which we are amending and about which I have blogged before, the position being recommended to the delegation by the Policy Committee of the NEC is to support, 71, opposed 1 and defer making a decision about the other 10 (meaning that there is no recommendation from the Policy Committee on those 10 – yet).

The one motion which we are being recommended to oppose at this stage is Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association (POA) which calls upon the TUC to coordinate strike action which would breach the anti-union laws in order to reclaim the right to take strike action which the Tory Government took away and New Labour has refused to restore.

I can imagine the arguments against this proposition, which is certainly ambitious. However the POA, having been on the receiving end of outrageous legal attacks by this disgrace of a Government, are right to say that the more limited campaigning undertaken to date has failed to achieve any significant reduction in the anti-democratic restrictions on the rights of working people which hobble our movement.

Whilst the big unions will not be persuaded to take the risks which the POA have had no choice but to take, Motion 7 asks a question of the leaders of our movement, about what it is we have got for our support of New Labour, which needs now to be asked (and to which an answer is certainly outstanding).

The motion from the CWU (Number 84) which asks the same question is one of those upon which the NEC Policy Committee did not make a recommendation in August. The CWU rightly point out that trade unionists are not supporting New Labour and calls upon the TUC to organise a Conference at which the trade unions can consider how to achieve political representation for our members. If UNISON's TUC delegation supports the speech given by our General Secretary to our National Delegate Conference in June then we will follow through and vote for this motion.

The other nine motions on which no recommendation has yet been made are as follows;

Motion 10 on Fighting Fascism from PCS (I am at a loss – as I write – to see why we are not simply being recommended to support this. It may be that there are reservations about its call for a national demonstration to be called by the TUC).

Motion 32 on the Peoples' Charter from the RMT. Though if I am well informed in hearing that the RMT will support the UNITE amendment to their motion (which supports “the principles of” the Charter and commits to campaigning for progressive policies in the Labour Party) then I cannot believe we will oppose this motion as amended.

Motion 47 from BALPA opposing a tax on air travel (the Green in me hopes we oppose this!)

Motion 49 from PCS on Defending Public Services (only a cynic would think that we have not come out in support of this in order to strengthen our hand in some argument about a Composite, since I cannot see a word in the motion itself which is not in line with UNISON policy.

Motion 56 from the NUT on Education and the Economic Crisis (which is probably giving the General Council the collywobbles with its call for a national demonstration ahead of the General Election).

Motion 70 on copyright piracy from BECTU (which calls for internet service providers to clamp down on illegal downloading). I can see both sides of this argument and will be interested to hear the views of other delegates.

Motion 73 from Equity on “Workers in Adult Entertainment” (which touches on the ongoing debate about whether workers in “adult” entertainment (and/or the sex industry) need union organisation or exit strategies). Again I can see both sides of this argument, but come down generally on the side or organising workers rather than putting moral judgements about their work ahead of their need for organisation. This motion opposes extending the category of “sex encounter establishments” so that local authorities can limit the number of lap dancing clubs in their area – and on this point I do think that democratically elected local politicians should have some such authority.

Motion 82 from the Trades Councils calling for the defence of TUC Unemployed Workers Centres (about which any concerns must be ones about the detail and volume of work being required of the General Council, who are presumably encouraging the larger affiliates not to commit support until they have been able to come to some understanding with the movers?)

Motion 85 from the RMT (which calls for the TUC Young Members Conference to have the right to submit a motion to Congress). There is no coherent argument against this reasonable proposal, and if incoherent arguments are advance I shall let you know on this blog.

Other than these motions above we are to be recommended to support all the other motions on the agenda. The motions we are supporting are in many cases more important than those discussed above (with the exception perhaps of Motion 84!) but since tomorrow's delegation meeting is likely to focus on the motions where no recommendation has yet been made I thought I would comment on those.

Discrimination on grounds of philosphical belief?

It is interesting to see that the employers are to appeal a recent tribunal ruling that their treatment of a manager who was a committed environmentalist discriminated against him on grounds of his philosophical belief.

The tribunal's crucial decision at a pre-hearing review is itself a few months old so I suppose that what is newsworthy is that by appealing the decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal the employers will end up setting a precedent one way or another.

Since discrimination on grounds of religious belief is prohibited it seems to me right that other deeply held beliefs should attract similar protection - we need to be on the look out for the next case in which an employer victimises a trade unionist because of their opposition to privatisation for example. If environmentalism is protected then perhaps a socialist belief in public ownership and public services should likewise be protected?

At this stage the tribunal decision allows only for informed speculation about what it might mean in future - an EAT decision will set a precedent.

With a Tory Government on the horizon and the Cameroonian outriders in places like Barnet, Essex and Hammersmith showing us their fangs, we need to grab every weapon with which to defend our activists in the coming battle for public services. I hope that the EAT finds for the claimant in this case.

Support UCU strikers at Tower Hamlets College

I've just received the following via UNISON United Left;

UCU members at Tower Hamlets College have been on all out strike since Thursday 27th August - fighting to defend jobs and education. Below please see all ways you can raise this in your branches.

What you can do to help:

1. Picket lines all day

Visit picket lines

Poplar High Street E14 0AF

Arbour Square E1 0PT

Bethnal Green E2 6AB

2. Take a collection at work:

Strike fund: c/o Keith Priddle UCU THC Treasurer

Tower Hamlets College, Arbour Square Site, E1 0PT.

Sort code 089299

Account number 65252262

3. Send urgent messages of support to:

Richard McEwan (Branch Sec) 07532364638 richmcewan@hotmail.com

Alison Lord (Branch Chair) 07805819605 lallylord@hotmail.com

John Budis (Branch Sec) 07967893664 johnbudis@gmail.com

4. Write to the Principal Michael.farley@tower.ac.uk

6. Sign: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/THCollegefunding/

7. For uptodate info, video and photos join the Facebook group: ‘Tower Hamlets - Stop the Cuts!’

8. Write to your MP: www.theyworkforyou.com

9. Demand Jobs and Educations for All. Join UCU sponsored lobby of the Labour party conference September 27th in Brighton.

UNISON's amendments to the TUC

The Final Agenda for the TUC Congress next week is online (and has finally arrived in the post!)

I’ll blog later about UNISON’s position on the various motions on the agenda but will now comment on our amendments.

UNISON has an amendment to UNITE’s motion on the Posted Workers Directive (Motion 1) which could be a very high profile debate at Congress in view of the recent ballot results and the prospect of further strike action in the refineries and power stations.

In Section 3 on Economic and Industrial Affairs, is UNISON’s amendment to the GMB motion on “Quality Pensions for All” (Motion 23), which enables our TUC delegation to come close to implementing the clear 2009 Conference decision that we should have put this issue on the agenda as a motion ourselves (about which I have whinged before). If there’s a composite with our name on then we will in the end almost have complied with our own policy.

UNISON also has an amendment in to a motion from UCATT on Housing (Motion 37) which makes a couple of positive additions but then deletes a clause which calls on the General Council to campaign for “to ensure local authorities are the primary deliverers of social housing” with a call for the campaign to be “for an expanded programme of affordable social housing based on a level playing field between local authorities, housing associations and ALMOs.'

Since the UNISON TUC delegation no longer has a meeting to agree amendments to TUC motions, this amendment has been submitted on UNISON’s behalf by the Policy Committee of the NEC, but I’m not sure my colleagues on the Policy Committee have got it quite right.

UNISON’s policy on Housing states that “council housing should be a central component” in addressing housing need and “welcomes the government's more positive message on the key role of council housing over the last year but believes it is essential that the issue be given the highest possible priority to ensure that all councils are required to take full advantage of public money available to invest in council housing.” UNISON Conference 2009 also called for “a significantly expanded role for local authorities as providers of decent homes” and reiterated support for the Fourth Option (which is increasingly relevant following today’s launch at the DCH National Meeting of the latest report from the Council Housing group of MPs).

This built on the policy of our Local Government Conference in 2008 which was to “campaign for the widest possible measures that enable local authorities to build new council homes where they would be contributing to meeting housing need in their locality.” Our policy of support for a “level playing field” between different housing providers is not based upon equal support for different providers, but upon UNISON’s opposition to the bias against Council housing built into Government policy.

National Delegate Conference put it well in 2006; “Conference reaffirms its opposition to any of the forms of privatisation of council housing whether through stock transfer, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) or Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and that council housing has been repeatedly shown to be cheaper to build and has lower maintenance costs than all the other options and would make a major contribution to meeting the housing needs of today as well as improving health and well being in the longer term”.

Since the word limit on TUC amendments applies equally to additional or replacement text I don’t quite see why we couldn’t simply have added our sensible “level playing field” demand to UCATT’s correct proposition that, ideally, local authorities should be the primary providers.

Having to deal on an almost daily basis with the failure of ALMOs as a policy initiative, and having seen how third sector providers of social housing can treat their staff, I think UCATT are right – and that what they say is consistent with UNISON policy – when they express the aspiration that local authorities (democratically accountable to local communities) should be the primary providers of social housing.

UNISON has to be committed to representing all our housing members regardless of their employer – but that doesn’t mean that we should agree, as a matter of policy, that we are neutral as between different forms of social housing provision (after all, we manage to represent workers in private contractors whilst continuing to oppose privatisation).

I hope that compositing enables the addition of UNISON’s “level playing field” demand without the deletion of UCATT’s support for council housing.

The non-pay elements of the local government pay offer

A busy week at work has kept me from the blog (and clearly drained me of all inspiration when it comes to the titles of blog posts...)

Yesterday I was pleased to visit the Islington branch to speak about the consultative ballot on local government pay.

I voted to reject the offer (in line with the recommendation of the Branch Committee) but having spoken to comrades in a number of other branches I think it is reasonable to predict that there will be a majority to accept the employers’ offer (in line with the national recommendation).

This will focus attention on the non-pay elements of the offer. The additional day’s leave is – as I have observed previously - only on offer (as part of the national proposal) to those in receipt of no more than the national minimum amount of annual leave.

However, with all our local authority employers having budgeted for more than the likely cost of the probable pay settlement the time must be right for coordinated claims for additional leave.

This is certainly more constructive than the daft idea (currently being floated locally) that employees should be able to “buy” additional leave (i.e. that we should be able to take unpaid leave as we already are…)

The other element of the offer is the suggestion that the National Joint Council will come up with some guidance on handling redundancies. I have spent large chunks of this week dealing both with negotiations on a redundancy policy and arguments about the application of the existing policy. I was therefore pleased to hear another Branch Secretary express the reservations which I instinctively have about national guidelines on this topic.

I’d be interested in the thinking on the trade union side about this element of the proposals from our employers. With the prospect of significant job losses over the next couple of years (and beyond) we certainly need to be sharing best practice between branches. Will NJC guidelines help us with this?

We also need to see firm and wholehearted support for branches forced to take strike action in defence of jobs, as will our members at London Metropolitan University and Tower Hamlets College (in the latter case alongside UCU members on indefinite strike).

Branches in the front line need support – and I’ll certainly be asking at the next NEC what UNISON at Regional and national level is doing (or not doing) to support branches such as Barnet, who are being given a foretaste of what is in store for many of us after the next General Election (and responding!).

The laziness of the bank holiday blogger

I should be drafting the branch response to UNISON’s questionnaire to branches on the political fund review – the deadline for which is Friday 4 September but can’t get round to it (anyone else who hasn’t done it yet you can complete it online here).

While I’ve been managing to avoid work over the bank holiday weekend other UNISON colleagues have not been so fortunate.

On the beach this afternoon I received a confidential email circular with good news from a senior national officer. I can’t say any more about it’s contents. Branches should keep up to date with developments in relation to Equal Pay on the website.

It’s not only our national officials at work on a bank holiday. My indefatigable counterpart in Barnet has been busy online responding to the craziness of his Tory employers as exposed in Friday’s Guardian.

I wouldn’t want readers to think that I have been doing nothing other than getting sunburnt today – I have been having a first read through of the papers for next week’s meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee and can offer an exclusive preview of a late silly season story for September.

The Committee will receive a report recommending that “with effect from the next cycle of meetings, members of a committee may not challenge, speak against or oppose a decision or recommendation of that committee in full meetings of the NEC”.

With such major challenges facing our Union, readers will be pleased that we are prioritising the key question of trying to avoid too much debate and disagreement amongst our leadership. After all it has worked well before…

(Oh no, hang on a minute…)

Oi! What about the (social) workers?

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Mabledon-Tankie) will be aware that I am not reticent about criticising our national Union when the occasion demands.

However, when you catch a glimpse of UNISON at our best we are impressive.

Right now the General Social Care Council is catching up with a backlog of cases - which is a chilling thought for many who work in social care.

The GSCC has draconian powers to prevent social workers from working in response to a complaint about their conduct - and operates under Rules which give less protection to the rights of an employee than most internal disciplinary procedures.

Since bashing social workers is now a national pastime there is something close to a presumption of guilt when complaints are made.

So I am very pleased to have seen close up the excellent work of UNISON's Professional Services Unit protecting the rights of a UNISON member.

As the UNISON website points out the problems in social care are all about a lack of resources. We live in a society that won't will the means to protect vulnerable children (or adults) but still wants a scapegoat when the consequences of this lack of concern are manifest.

Of course we must look in to each and every tragedy and do all we can to safeguard the vulnerable - but right now there is no balance between these objectives and the rights of those who work in social care. If we keep getting this wrong no one will do the jobs that need to be done.

I am pleased to be a member of a trade union that can do such good work to protect members from the injustices which flow from the current moral panic - and I hope that the strengths we have will be preserved in any future relationship with any other body.

I've got a golden pension!

For those waiting for the next “bash the public sector worker” story intended to fill newsprint in the silly season whilst softening us up for the coming Tory offensive – today’s Times was a particular treat.

It turns out that that as a local government worker I have a “golden pension” - it almost makes me want to sing! - (though since I seem to recall that the average local government pensioner draws an annual pension around £4,000 I guess it’s only a very little bit of gold!) (Check this link to bust the myths around our pension scheme).

The Times also reports that somebody called John Denham who once left the Government with principles but has now rejoined is about to make some proposals to change the Local Government Pension Scheme.

I understand that civil servants are adamant that this story did not come from them and was not at all the beginning of an attempt to soften up the trade unions to accept some shabby compromise to defend bits of our pension.

So presumably this comes from (allegedly Labour) politicians who want to show that they can rein in public expenditure just like the Tories.

There are any number of words which I could use to describe such politicians – but this is a family blog and I would not want to shock regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger (nor their loyal follower) so I shall just describe whoever gave the Times this story as a

Pillock.

There is more political support to be lost than won in an attack upon public sector pensions. Since no one believes that there will be a Labour Government in office when the attack upon our pensions comes the preparatory work being done by (New) Labour ministers does seem to be as futile and counterproductive as it is misconceived.

Now that the contours of the coming attack upon public sector workers become clearer we must circle the wagons and prepare to fight back. Any politicians who want labour movement support should be on the inside of the circle shooting out!

It’s a good job that UNISON Conference policy on defending pensions has made it on to the TUC agenda. We need labour movement unity to defend all pension provisions in both the public and private sectors.

We also need to develop a coordinated response including public-sector wide industrial action. The TUC is an opportunity for the formal and informal discussion which now needs to take place.

Sean Rigg memorial protest

One year on from the suspicious death in custody of their brother, Sean Rigg, his family and their supporters marked the anniversary with a vigil at Brixton Police Station on Friday evening.

It was good to see comrades there from the RMT and PCS - and I have undertaken to raise the case within UNISON. Trade unionists have a compelling interest in civil liberties - and there are few more fundamental rights than the right not to lose your life in the custody of agents of the state charged with the protection of the public.

Follow the links above to find out more about the case.

A hat tip to Louise for pursuing this issue on behalf of the Labour Representation Committee.

It makes you sick

Having spent some time yesterday in a dismissal appeal under the employer's sickness procedure I was struck by the press coverage of figures for sickness absence in the National Health Service from the interim report of the Boorman review.

This is an important topic in employee relations, but one which is almost never covered sensibly or usefully when reported. Indeed the constant refrain that (on average) public sector workers have higher rates of sickness absence than private sector workers plays second (or maybe third) fiddle in the cacophony of general attacks upon us (over our pensions, or the myth of our relative job security). Whilst Boorman covers a lot of ground, the press coverage lends itself to headlines which focus simply on higher rates of sickness absence than the private sector and the impact upon the service from this.

Obviously there is a shared interest, between employees (and therefore our trade unions) and employers in reducing sickness absence. No one wants to be ill, and employers want to minimise absences for cost and service reasons. However, people will always fall ill (particularly you might think if they work in the health service and therefore come into contact with people who are using the health service because they are ill...) Some people will fall ill more than other people.

There are some positive things that can be done around employee wellbeing, and around good management to improve morale. However the reporting of statistics which we saw yesterday and today probably won't encourage these positive approaches - instead it will encourage those reactionaries in management positions who wrongly believe that a punitive approach to sickness absence can have a positive impact upon people and organisations. UNISON's response is sound, but we'll struggle to get sustained attention for a nuanced and positive response when it's so much easier to bash public sector workers.

To be honest I would be alarmed if rates of sickness absence in large public service organisations were as low as they are in parts of the private sector - because that would simply mean that workers were under the cosh to come in when they didn't feel well enough. If workers in better unionised areas, with civilised sick pay arrangements record more sickness absence than those working elsewhere that may be no bad thing.

If you don't feel well then you shouldn't be at work. And the job of the trade unions is, amongst other things, to protect our members when employers seek to adopt a punitive approach to sickness absence.

I may be some sort of dinosaur, but I would rather live in a world where you couldn't be sacked because of genuine sickness absence. Yesterday's press reports will give some unwelcome encouragement to those who disagree.

Representing low paid workers

One consequence of the unwise decision of my NEC colleagues to press ahead with controversial Rule Amendments for which the necessary political preparation had not been done at this year's Conference is that other Rule Amendments were not reached.

One such was the Rule Amendment that would have changed the definition of low pay for the purposes of election to "Reserved Seats" on the National Executive (and also on Service Group Executives, in Conference delegations etc.) The change (which we did not reach and could not therefore make) would have increased the hourly rate threshold by one pound.

This would have increased the proportion of UNISON's low paid women members eligible to stand for such seats. Given the general lack of competition for the Reserved Seats, and the consensus that the proposed change was sensible, I hope that we can prioritise this change next year.

Although I understand that the proposal to create the Reserved Seats emerged fairly late on in the negotiations which led to the creation of UNISON in 1993, whatever the intentions of those proposing this step, the principle that UNISON should fairly represent the large number of low paid women members in our leadership is now rightly entrenched.

A number of practical problems still need to be resolved (such as those which arise when workers hold more than one contract of employment, with different hourly rates in each, some in unionised areas and some in non-union employment). These issues are not new - they were on the agenda of Women's Conference 2003 for example.

However the main task facing activists in our Union is to encourage and facilitate activism by lower paid members.

Low paid migrant workers are currently bearing the brunt of an employers' counter-offensiive in London, as the bosses turn to the immigration authorities for revenge on workers who have won pay increases (such as June's disgraceful raid on UNISON members at SOAS).

Those who can get to Liverpool Street on Friday lunchtime can support the workers -at a demonstration for the payment of unpaid salaries and holidays of the detained cleaners on Friday 21 of Aug at 1pm at the Willis Building, 51 Lime Street, London, EC3M 7DQ. For those who don’t know the location, protesters will be at 12h30 in front of McDonalds at Liverpool Street station.

High Pay Commission?

Compass have done well with some publicity for the letter in today's Guardian calling for a "High Pay Commission".

It is possible to quibble about the details, but in essence this is a good demand. One of the most important functions of a trade union is to seek to regulate the employment relationship for our members, including our pay. In doing this we are often trying to "buck the market" - and our support for a Minimum Wage is also support for the idea that the income and living standards of human beings should not be set simply by reference to supply and demand.

Those who defend the exorbitant rewards for the super rich on the basis that the market demands adequate reward for those wealth creators who might otherwise go elsewhere are generally the same people who support a punitive welfare benefits regime to motivate the poor to work. A good example is John Redwood's attack today upon the detail of attempts to regulate high pay. This from a legendary opponent of the welfare state. On Planet Redwood (where Dave Cameron comes from too) to motivate the wealthy you must reward them but to motivate the poor you must penalise them.

More important than any institutional outcome of this campaign will be the success of the left in defeating the Thatcherite dictum that you cannot buck the market.

The signatories to the Compass letter also appear to be an attempt to get started on building cross Party opposition to the easily anticipated excesses of an equally easily anticipated Tory Government, which may also be a good idea.

(It would of course be both churlish and childish to remark upon the irony of a letter which starts by stating that the crisis we find ourselves in is "one significantly caused by greed" bearing the signature of Margaret Moran so I won't...)

Timetables...

As a regular rail commuter I have a natural interest in timetables.

A little less than five years ago UNISON was gearing up for a ballot on the retention of our political fund – and also for the election of our General Secretary (having myself achieved the worst result of any candidate in such an election I do tend to remember these things!)

Five years ago the NEC set the timetable for the General Secretary election at our October 2004 meeting, although the General Secretary’s term of office at the time did not expire until 1 January 2006.

This broadly followed a precedent set five years previously, ten years ago now, when Rodney Bickerstaffe announced during the summer of 1999 that he would not seek re-election to continue in office after the end of 2000.

In accordance with our Rule Book elections for the post of General Secretary take place as required by law. Under Rule E.3.2; “The General Secretary shall be elected and shall hold office for the maximum period of time prescribed by law.”

The relevant law is the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 46(1)(b) of which sets the maximum period of time as five years. However, section 58 provides for exemptions for persons approaching retirement (so that if a General Secretary is within five years of retirement at the point at which their term of office expires they can lawfully remain in office without the need for an election).

Information in the public domain suggests that section 58 is relevant to UNISON as we approach the end of the General Secretary’s current term of office on 1 January 2011.

Watch this space?

Who's afraid of national pay bargaining?

I am indebted to a an anonymous comment on a recent posts for these news links, particularly since reading the Municipal Journal is not one of those things that I generally give higher priority than the Morning Star.

The MJ report that Labour led Barking and Dagenham are among those thinking of breaking from national pay bargaining - which rather contradicts the statement made by all London Labour Leaders critical of the statements made by Merrick Cockell attacking the national pay offer.

It seems that some unnamed "source" within London Councils is jumping on the real bandwagon started by Tory Birmingham in order to suggest that the London employers could take on pay bargaining from national level. Since it is individual authorities which are members of the National Joint Council, rather than any cohesive London block, this is not really something which is within the limited competence of London Councils to deal with.

This London dimension has the hallmarks of a silly season story - although Councils are now complaining about the cost of a miserably low pay settlement (which we have not yet accepted) - they all set aside more money in their budgets than they are now being asked to find. The case against this offer on the employers' side is implausible.

Birmingham's Tories are disappointed that the national employers did not seek to humiliate the trade unions and force a national dispute. That's fair enough if Councillor Rudge and his colleagues want to play politics with pay negotiations.

However Labour Councils (in London and elsewhere) need to make clear now that there will be no cross party support for attempts to break national pay bargaining.

There's a storm coming

It's clear from news reports while I was away on holiday that storm clouds are gathered over the heads of local government workers.

Whilst I am guilty of imagining that Tory County Council leaders must mostly be chubby red faced squires who ought not to be taken too seriously(most probably bewhiskered and prone to fox hunting) I don't think we can simply view with derision their plans for massive spending cuts.

And whilst the proposal for local variations in benefits rates from the loony right in Essex does seem completely daft, so did the Poll Tax until it happened.

In London we've seen Hammersmith giving us a flavour of what the Tories are going to be like in national government - cutting services to keep taxes down, whilst in Barnet the imaginative and determined response of the trade unions and community is all that is fending off wholesale privatisation.

We need to step up national and Regional support for our local government branches, to facilitate campaigning (including necessary industrial action) and to prepare for the conflict which is going to engulf much of local government over the next couple of years.

Those of us with the relative good fortune to retain Labour Councils are hardly immune from the pressure for spending cuts and privatisation - indeed the test for any Labour candidates who want trade union support will be whether they can convincingly pledge to support us in our resistance.

Privatisation blues

I've spent chunks of today listening to managers and consultants trying to justify to our members why they want to privatise particular services that they don't believe themselves capable of managing effectively.

I'd hazard a guess that most readers of this blog (i.e. at least one of Sid and Doris Blogger) have a fair bit of such experience yourselves. It's not much fun.

I think it shows something of the scale of Thatcher's triumph (and the utter inadequacy of New Labour's response to this over the past decade) that managers and their consultants feel free to assert the superiority of the private sector as an article of faith. As everyone with the partial exception of Richard Dawkins knows, there is no point trying to argue with faith...

Locally, we're getting together tomorrow with our excellent consultant from the Association of Public Service Excellence to review what can now be done.

Nationally we certainly need to build the Million Voices for Change campaign, though I think we should also be putting UNISON's weight behind the People's Charter when it comes to the vote at the TUC.

We need to prioritise political support for those prepared to stick up for public services.

Back before our change of heart as a trade union we failed to back labour movement initiatives which we saw as too left wing.

I hope we don't repeat past errors.

Back to work :(

Regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger (together with their kids Dave and Selwyn) can relax on the sun lounger as your humble blogger is back from holidays.

Today - following a meeting of our Convenors Committee in the branch - I sent the mailshot for the pay ballot to the print room and - following a meeting with the soon-to-be-former manager of Strategic Human Resources - I got to a version of a redundancy policy I can recommend to our Branch Committee. So with that and 700 emails while I was off it's all just a regular day in the life of a lay union activist.

This year's pay ballot is interesting. Our Branch Committee is - rightly - recommending rejection of a pay offer which is less even than our employers budgeted for. However the national recommendation to accept (which branches should certainly communicate to members along with any local recommendation IMHO) will carry weight too. A decent vote to reject the offer would be a good start to the campaign that does need to be waged now in anticipation of next year's pay round.

The divisions on the employers' side are also remarkable. The risible ranting of Merrick Cockell (Tory leader of the London Council's group) suggesting that London might break away from national pay bargaining because they oppose the derisory national offer is surely just posturing. If it's not then he's got a pretty limited grasp of economics (though I suppose membership of the Conservative Party often indicates that!)

We may not have the union density of the Scots, Welsh or Northerners but trade unionists in London local government are in the middle of economic and demographic pressures which mean that London level pay bargaining could not but be more expensive for the employers' in the long term.

Socialists should nevertheless support national pay bargaining because we should consider the interests of our class as a whole rather than any local or Regional sub group. Even in the strongest branches in Inner London we are better off as part of a national Union - because only a national Union can wield national political power in the interests of our members.

Leaving of course, only the question of whether we will do so. The challenge facing our Union now is whether we will follow through with the logic of what Dave Prentis said at Conference. The first thing we must do is to support the CWU at the TUC .

Wish you were here :)

The great thing about being on holiday is that you can find things worth so much more than a one per cent pay increase.

Whether you want to accept or reject the pay offer – we all need to consider the point raised with me recently by a diligent activist from amongst dreaming spires.

If we end up with a pay rise worth barely more than 1% from employers who have on average budgeted for twice as much, how can we then try to get the benefit from a one day increase in annual leave?

Most of us have locally agreed leave codes which exceed the national agreement. An increase in the national agreement will not automatically increase the leave entitlement of those of us with better local agreements. That will be for us to negotiate locally.

How can we use this proposed settlement to get an extra day’s leave for all our members?

After all, we can do much more with leave than with money!