I was sorry to miss the People's Charter Convention last week - particularly since I missed the contribution of UNISON's Scottish Region Convenor, Mike Kirby.
Mike rightly argued that we can (and indeed should) campaign both for the People's Charter and our own Million Voices campaign. The two are in no way counterposed. I agree - and have done for some time.
Both are about focusing the support of working class people on policies which are in our interests in order to mobilise pressure on politicians in our interests. Mike's comment about the STUC could equally apply to many other UNISON Regions; "The People’s Charter was opposed less because of what it said, but because of who was saying it".
In the choice which we will face between prioritising resistance or accommodation to attacks upon our interests we need to use both the Charter and the Million Voices campaign as ways of helping our members, and working people generally, to chose the former.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Congratulations Leeds
The Morning Star is reporting the successful outcome of the eleven week long strike by UNISON and GMB members in Leeds.
This dispute is a reminder that pay equity is best achieved by collective bargaining backed up as necessary with industrial action, and that unity between the trade unions is vital to defeat a hostile employer.
The strike also shows that our members will show courage and determination in a defensive struggle - a lesson which we have to consider carefully as we face up to attack after attack in the coming years. One possible response will be to accommodate to detrimental change (such as the continued fragmenting of public service provision or attacks upon core conditions) in order to prioritise sustaining membership and organisation. Another possible response is to see our role essentially as one of resisting adverse changes, mobilising our members and potential members with the priority of defending workers' interests (and the secondary benefit of improved organisation and membership).
Regular readers Sid and Doris Crypto-Trot will know which of those two approaches I prefer, which I think the Leeds strikers have just put into practice.
This dispute is a reminder that pay equity is best achieved by collective bargaining backed up as necessary with industrial action, and that unity between the trade unions is vital to defeat a hostile employer.
The strike also shows that our members will show courage and determination in a defensive struggle - a lesson which we have to consider carefully as we face up to attack after attack in the coming years. One possible response will be to accommodate to detrimental change (such as the continued fragmenting of public service provision or attacks upon core conditions) in order to prioritise sustaining membership and organisation. Another possible response is to see our role essentially as one of resisting adverse changes, mobilising our members and potential members with the priority of defending workers' interests (and the secondary benefit of improved organisation and membership).
Regular readers Sid and Doris Crypto-Trot will know which of those two approaches I prefer, which I think the Leeds strikers have just put into practice.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Where should we build in the Local Government Service Group?
Last Thursday's Regional Local Government Executive saw constructive discussion on a number of topics.
The Committee agreed to express concern to the Service Group Executive about the recent decision of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee to recommend that the NEC overrides the powers of Service Group Executives to determine the composition of Service Group Conferences.
The Committee also discussed the growth of online recruitment and I was able to report that an analysis of where the online recruits are working is to be prepared by our Head of Recruitment.
Most importantly the Committee discussed recruitment in general at some length, including a verbal report on recent evidence about trade union density (about which I have blogged before). Whether relying upon UNISON's own data or that from the employers it is clear that a majority of the directly employed workforce of London local authority employees are not members of any trade union.
However, all of these employees are covered by collective bargaining (i.e. their pay and conditions are determined, in whole or part, by bargaining with employers at national, London or local level). All of these workers work in an environment in which trade unions are recognised and can make a difference to their working lives. These are also the LGPS members whose pensions will be attacked in the next two years.
The more than 100,000 potential trade union members in this group provide both more fertile ground for union recruitment than any other in the Service Group - and recruitment of these potential members will directly build the bargaining strength of workers (those who join and those who are already members).
I agreed with fellow NEC member Glenn Kelly that this group should be our number one priority for recruitment in the next few months.
The Committee agreed to express concern to the Service Group Executive about the recent decision of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee to recommend that the NEC overrides the powers of Service Group Executives to determine the composition of Service Group Conferences.
The Committee also discussed the growth of online recruitment and I was able to report that an analysis of where the online recruits are working is to be prepared by our Head of Recruitment.
Most importantly the Committee discussed recruitment in general at some length, including a verbal report on recent evidence about trade union density (about which I have blogged before). Whether relying upon UNISON's own data or that from the employers it is clear that a majority of the directly employed workforce of London local authority employees are not members of any trade union.
However, all of these employees are covered by collective bargaining (i.e. their pay and conditions are determined, in whole or part, by bargaining with employers at national, London or local level). All of these workers work in an environment in which trade unions are recognised and can make a difference to their working lives. These are also the LGPS members whose pensions will be attacked in the next two years.
The more than 100,000 potential trade union members in this group provide both more fertile ground for union recruitment than any other in the Service Group - and recruitment of these potential members will directly build the bargaining strength of workers (those who join and those who are already members).
I agreed with fellow NEC member Glenn Kelly that this group should be our number one priority for recruitment in the next few months.
MPs - should they be hung?
I don't generally have the time to post simple comment on what is going on in "the news" out there in the wide world, but yesterday's opinion poll data suggesting that there really is a chance of a hung Parliament got me thinking about what John McDonnell had had to say at last week's Labour Representation Committee Conference.
In a hung Parliament, relatively small groups of MPs could exercise greater influence, which could be good news for what will probably be the tiniest group of socialists in Parliament for many years. This is not simply a product of Parliamentary arithmetic (as otherwise it would be hard to see how a dozen or so MPs standing to the left of more than six hundred others could have leverage).
Aside from wily tactics in Parliament, the left - and the trade unions - could gain from a hung Parliament in another way. Given that all three of the main Parties are committed to a greater or lesser extent, to public spending cuts and (for example) attacks on public sector pensions, a strong Government of any Party is likely to be a bad thing for those of us who want to protect the welfare state and the interests of trade union members.
A hung Parliament and a weak Government will be less able to defeat our movement - if (and this is sometimes a big if) we are prepared to stand up for ourselves. The immediate task we face are therefore to seek to elect the maximum number of socialists MPs and arguing in our trade unions for the combative policies and leadership that will be needed in the next few years. (So if you are in PCS I hope you are voting for Mark Serwotka!)
We also - which is most important since without this nothing else matters - need to build the strength of our movement to be able to face these challenges.
In a hung Parliament, relatively small groups of MPs could exercise greater influence, which could be good news for what will probably be the tiniest group of socialists in Parliament for many years. This is not simply a product of Parliamentary arithmetic (as otherwise it would be hard to see how a dozen or so MPs standing to the left of more than six hundred others could have leverage).
Aside from wily tactics in Parliament, the left - and the trade unions - could gain from a hung Parliament in another way. Given that all three of the main Parties are committed to a greater or lesser extent, to public spending cuts and (for example) attacks on public sector pensions, a strong Government of any Party is likely to be a bad thing for those of us who want to protect the welfare state and the interests of trade union members.
A hung Parliament and a weak Government will be less able to defeat our movement - if (and this is sometimes a big if) we are prepared to stand up for ourselves. The immediate task we face are therefore to seek to elect the maximum number of socialists MPs and arguing in our trade unions for the combative policies and leadership that will be needed in the next few years. (So if you are in PCS I hope you are voting for Mark Serwotka!)
We also - which is most important since without this nothing else matters - need to build the strength of our movement to be able to face these challenges.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
All the fun of the Regional Committee
As I race to catch up with the fun and games over recent days I find myself having to return to Tuesday morning and a meeting of our UNISON Regional Committee.
This was not perhaps the most exciting meeting I have attended in the recent past. We discussed the reasonable positive recruitment data (concerning which I pointed out that the various figures in the reports before us did not tally) and a range of other matters relating to the day to day work of our Union (as we should).
A dishonest and misleading report of our discussion of the threat from the BNP is already available online so I won't detain you too much on this point.
Suffice to say that my contribution in response to the news that the odious Nick Griffin is to stand for the Barking constituency was to say that it is essential that all anti-Nazis vote for Margaret Hodge (and that we should keep any critical thoughts about dear Margaret very much to ourselves from now until the General Election).
I did and do think that New Labour's betrayal of our core supporters has helped to create the political space in which the BNP now operate. I think that is obviously the case and that UNISON cannot give generally uncritical or unconditional support to Labour candidates for this reason (among others).
However where the BNP pose a serious threat we should (IMHO - as we say in blogland) support the candidate best placed to defeat them.
Even if that means that we have to elect to a Council someone who will thereby lose their employment and eligibility for UNISON office.
This was not perhaps the most exciting meeting I have attended in the recent past. We discussed the reasonable positive recruitment data (concerning which I pointed out that the various figures in the reports before us did not tally) and a range of other matters relating to the day to day work of our Union (as we should).
A dishonest and misleading report of our discussion of the threat from the BNP is already available online so I won't detain you too much on this point.
Suffice to say that my contribution in response to the news that the odious Nick Griffin is to stand for the Barking constituency was to say that it is essential that all anti-Nazis vote for Margaret Hodge (and that we should keep any critical thoughts about dear Margaret very much to ourselves from now until the General Election).
I did and do think that New Labour's betrayal of our core supporters has helped to create the political space in which the BNP now operate. I think that is obviously the case and that UNISON cannot give generally uncritical or unconditional support to Labour candidates for this reason (among others).
However where the BNP pose a serious threat we should (IMHO - as we say in blogland) support the candidate best placed to defeat them.
Even if that means that we have to elect to a Council someone who will thereby lose their employment and eligibility for UNISON office.
Development and Organisation Committee report (or the laziness of the long distance blogger)
Although the recent troubles of First Capital Connect are lengthening my commute recently it still isn't really long enough to keep blogging up to date with work at the moment so I'm cheating now and rather than blogging a full report of last week's Development and Organisation Committee meeting I will simply share the report I have submitted for the next Regional Council - with minor embellishments perhaps.
There has not been a full NEC meeting since the last Regional Council.
The NEC Development and Organisation Committee met on 11 November.
Several of the items discussed at that meeting - including reports on recruitment and the Three Companies Project will no doubt be covered in other reports to the Regional Council. (Although I will add here that we had quite a full report on the project at the Committee - and subsequently- on Tuesday - I was able to advise the Regional Officials that London may be the scene for one of the major organising drives as part of the project)(perhaps not calling it a blitz though...)
There are three particular items to which I would like to draw the attention of Regional Council delegates.
First, the Committee endorsed transitional arrangements for the establishment of the new and revised service group structures as agreed at National Delegate Conference.
These will enable elections to take place to the Service Group Executives. As the detail of the transitional arrangements varies between Service Groups I will not report on them all in detail here but will be happy to provide details on request.
The Committee also specifically endorsed a proposed scheme of representation for branch delegates to the first Conference of the new Community Service Group which is due to take place in November 2010.
This scheme in relation to which I had raised various questions (about which I will happily provide further information on request) provides for all branches with at least one member in the Service Group to be entitled to one delegate. Those few branches with more than 250 members of the Service Group get a second delegate, with a third for 500 members and an additional delegate per 500 members thereafter.
(Those with an interest in this matter can scroll down over a couple of recent posts to see my doomed attempt to suggest amendments to the scheme of representation to the Conference to make it more representative).
This does mean that many London branches will need to budget for attendance at this Conference in 2010 and make arrangements for members in the new Service Group to elect a delegate or delegates.
The second important matter which I need to raise concerns the scheme of representation for branches at Service Group Conferences. Although the Rule Book gives the responsibility for this matter clearly to Service Group Executives (with the approval of the Service Group Conference) the Committee decided to recommend to the NEC that it use its power to implement proportionality and fair representation to impose upon Service Groups the scheme of branch representation agreed for National Delegate Conference.
The majority of the Committee accepted officer advice that this was within the Rules of the Union and disagreed with my view that this is a misreading of our Rule Book.
It is my judgement as one of your NEC members that - even if this is within our Rules (which I do not accept) it is a serious error for the NEC to infringe the autonomy of Service Groups in this way. This view is underlined by the fact that the motivation for this proposal is the convenience of consistency in the application of online delegate registration and that consultation was with National Secretaries and not Service Group Executives.
Given the decision of the NEC in October on the collective accountability of members of NEC Committees, were I to vote in accordance with my judgement at the NEC (against this proposal) I would be referred to the Presidential Team who could recommend my exclusion from the Development and Organisation Committee.
Since I consider myself to be accountable to those who elected me I would welcome feedback from London branches as to whether I should vote in accordance with my considered judgement or should abstain in spite of this in order to avoid possible exclusion from the Committee. I can be contacted at j.rogers@unison.co.uk and would welcome your views.
(I would also welcome comments on the blog of course.)
The third important matter to report is that the Committee determined a timetable for the next Service Group Executive elections - these will be published following approval by the December NEC. These elections will include, according to the appropriate transitional arrangements, elections to the new and revised Service Groups as agreed at National Delegate Conference.
Those who want to make UNISON a more effective and democratic Union to confront the challenges ahead need to be thinking - and talking - about candidates for these important elections.
There has not been a full NEC meeting since the last Regional Council.
The NEC Development and Organisation Committee met on 11 November.
Several of the items discussed at that meeting - including reports on recruitment and the Three Companies Project will no doubt be covered in other reports to the Regional Council. (Although I will add here that we had quite a full report on the project at the Committee - and subsequently- on Tuesday - I was able to advise the Regional Officials that London may be the scene for one of the major organising drives as part of the project)(perhaps not calling it a blitz though...)
There are three particular items to which I would like to draw the attention of Regional Council delegates.
First, the Committee endorsed transitional arrangements for the establishment of the new and revised service group structures as agreed at National Delegate Conference.
These will enable elections to take place to the Service Group Executives. As the detail of the transitional arrangements varies between Service Groups I will not report on them all in detail here but will be happy to provide details on request.
The Committee also specifically endorsed a proposed scheme of representation for branch delegates to the first Conference of the new Community Service Group which is due to take place in November 2010.
This scheme in relation to which I had raised various questions (about which I will happily provide further information on request) provides for all branches with at least one member in the Service Group to be entitled to one delegate. Those few branches with more than 250 members of the Service Group get a second delegate, with a third for 500 members and an additional delegate per 500 members thereafter.
(Those with an interest in this matter can scroll down over a couple of recent posts to see my doomed attempt to suggest amendments to the scheme of representation to the Conference to make it more representative).
This does mean that many London branches will need to budget for attendance at this Conference in 2010 and make arrangements for members in the new Service Group to elect a delegate or delegates.
The second important matter which I need to raise concerns the scheme of representation for branches at Service Group Conferences. Although the Rule Book gives the responsibility for this matter clearly to Service Group Executives (with the approval of the Service Group Conference) the Committee decided to recommend to the NEC that it use its power to implement proportionality and fair representation to impose upon Service Groups the scheme of branch representation agreed for National Delegate Conference.
The majority of the Committee accepted officer advice that this was within the Rules of the Union and disagreed with my view that this is a misreading of our Rule Book.
It is my judgement as one of your NEC members that - even if this is within our Rules (which I do not accept) it is a serious error for the NEC to infringe the autonomy of Service Groups in this way. This view is underlined by the fact that the motivation for this proposal is the convenience of consistency in the application of online delegate registration and that consultation was with National Secretaries and not Service Group Executives.
Given the decision of the NEC in October on the collective accountability of members of NEC Committees, were I to vote in accordance with my judgement at the NEC (against this proposal) I would be referred to the Presidential Team who could recommend my exclusion from the Development and Organisation Committee.
Since I consider myself to be accountable to those who elected me I would welcome feedback from London branches as to whether I should vote in accordance with my considered judgement or should abstain in spite of this in order to avoid possible exclusion from the Committee. I can be contacted at j.rogers@unison.co.uk and would welcome your views.
(I would also welcome comments on the blog of course.)
The third important matter to report is that the Committee determined a timetable for the next Service Group Executive elections - these will be published following approval by the December NEC. These elections will include, according to the appropriate transitional arrangements, elections to the new and revised Service Groups as agreed at National Delegate Conference.
Those who want to make UNISON a more effective and democratic Union to confront the challenges ahead need to be thinking - and talking - about candidates for these important elections.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A tiny step forward
I was reminded today why I would sooner work for a Labour local authority than for the Tory flagships such as Barnet, Essex and Hammersmith and Fulham who are busily attacking their workforces.
Trade union lobbying (led by UNISON) today persuaded Lambeth Council's Cabinet to agree to consider an in-house option for the future of some services at risk of privatisation.
This was not what the officers had been recommending and it took the combined efforts of the trade unions and the Labour Council leadership to get us this far. It is, as I say, only a tiny step forward with all the hard work now still to be done.
However, in the context of UNISON's Million Voices campaign this is precisely the sort of hard graft to protect public services that we need to be doing.
Trade union lobbying (led by UNISON) today persuaded Lambeth Council's Cabinet to agree to consider an in-house option for the future of some services at risk of privatisation.
This was not what the officers had been recommending and it took the combined efforts of the trade unions and the Labour Council leadership to get us this far. It is, as I say, only a tiny step forward with all the hard work now still to be done.
However, in the context of UNISON's Million Voices campaign this is precisely the sort of hard graft to protect public services that we need to be doing.
Friday, November 13, 2009
A shocking injustice
My friend and fellow Lambeth UNISON Branch Secretary Nick has been complaining that there are not enough posts on this blog about obscure points in the Union Rule Book - so I shall return to something I was saying about Rule K.
That is the Rule which governs how members of UNISON can access legal advice, which is entirely within the discretion of the National Executive Council (delegated of course, for the most part, to officers).
I blogged before about a case in which the Union was found by the Certification Officer to have breached our Rules - in that case a Branch Secretary was criticised by the Certification Officer. Since that time the individual in question has served on our National Executive Council.
Not everyone who is accused of putting a foot wrong in our Union is treated so sympathetically.
Caroline Bedale from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years.
All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline Bedale has been found guilty by a UNISON Disciplinary Committee of charges relating to things she did after UNISON withdrew legal assistance from Karen Reissmann, just before Karen‟s case was due to be heard by an Employment Tribunal. The disciplinary penalty means she will be barred from holding union office for 8 years (i.e. for the rest of her working life!)
Legal assistance was withdrawn because Karen decided not to take some legal advice. Only the legal assistance was withdrawn – UNISON policy continued to support the campaign for Karen‟s reinstatement and for the right for trade union activists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
These are two questions being posed by Karen's supporters;
What would you have done if your branch was under attack from a vindictive employer who had
sacked the Chairperson of your branch because of their trade union work and speaking out against cuts and privatisation?
Wouldn't you have been dismayed if, after an unprecedented strike by health workers and a
high profile union campaign for reinstatement, the union's legal assistance had been withdrawn? Given that the union policy of campaigning for Karen‟s reinstatement still continued wouldn't you have done what you could to defend and support her?
I know that I would always do my best to defend an activist in the branch - if we don't stick up for each other in circumstances like that we are done for.
Caroline faced three charges;
A: “Seeking to secure alternative legal advice and representation for Karen Reissmann, whose legal
advice and representation had been terminated by the Union”.
B: “campaigning against UNISON policy” – that policy is defined as “the decision of UNISON to
withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann” – and that Caroline has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing.
C: “using UNISON resources to campaign against UNISON policy” – Caroline is said to have
campaigned against the Union‟s rules and policy, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing. It is not specified what rules she is meant to have campaigned against, and the „policy‟ is actually a „decision‟ not a policy.
This is because Caroline did the following things as a UNISON Branch Secretary;
1. At Karen‟s request, Caroline sent a letter to Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre (SUCRC) asking if they would “look into taking on” Karen‟s case if UNISON did not agree to continue the legal assistance. No UNISON funds were used for Karen‟s new legal representation.
2. As agreed by the Branch Committee, Caroline sent a letter to all branches in September 2008 to update them on Karen‟s case, and to say that the campaign continued for her reinstatement and for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation. The letter asked branches to sign an open letter and petition to Ivan Lewis MP. A branch delegation together with the NW Regional Secretary, Frank Hont, was planning to meet him about Karen.
The letter mentioned that the Union had withdrawn legal assistance, and said that the Branch Committee “think this is a shame”. That was the only comment on the withdrawal of legal assistance – but this is said to be „campaigning against UNISON policy‟ and prejudicial to the union. There was NO campaign to get the union to reinstate legal assistance. There WAS a continuing campaign in support of Karen, supported at national, regional and branch levels. Caroline was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this letter, but was found to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union.
I have to say, as a long serving UNISON Branch Secretary who is notoriously cautious about staying within the Rules I might very well have done the same. Caroline acted in good faith to defend a fellow activist and - had she known about the Certification Officer decision in the case of the London UNISON Branch Secretary she might have felt reassured that, even if she had committed some technical breach of Rule, the Union would stand by her.
Unfortunately she would have been wrong to have been reassured. It seems the Union takes a harsher view of someone who is held to have breached a Rule to try to help a member than it does when someone breaches a Rule in a way which could obstruct a member from receiving help (unless of course that it is the politics of the individual which makes the difference).
What takes the case almost into the realms of fantasy though are the allegations made by the Union about things she did in her own time and with her own resources.
3. She allowed her private telephone numbers to be used as the contact point on a press release from the independent „Reinstate Karen Reissmann Campaign‟.
4. Caroline sent an email from her own computer using her email to a closed discussion email group for members of the United Left in UNISON, to let them know what was happening in Karen‟s case. She said that legal assistance had been withdrawn and that there were attempts to persuade the union to reinstate legal support. This email is said to have been “in furtherance of a campaign against a decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann”. There was NO such campaign to try to get the legal representation reinstated. A comment in an email does not constitute a campaign. Again, she was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this email, but was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the union.
Caroline had every right to express her personal opinions in personal emails - and to allow her home telephone number to be used for a campaign. I have often used my own resources to book meetings, produce leaflets and organise campaign activities. Like Caroline, I am diligent about not using our Union's resources for purposes other than those specified in our Rule Book - but what I do in my own time with my own money and resources is my own business.
I have been proud to count Caroline as a friend and comrade over a number of years. She is an excellent and dedicated trade unionist and the sort of person upon which the movement depends. She has often been a critic of our leadership when it has been wrong - and has as often been foremost amongst our activists.
If we permit a good comrade to be hounded out of office in our Union then we shall be as guilty as those doing the hounding.
As a member of UNISON's National Executive Council re-elected for a fourth term I believe that there is a great deal of which we can be proud about in relation to our Union. We shall, over the next period, be the first and sometimes only line of defence around vital public services upon which some of the most vulnerable depend. I am proud to be a UNISON member.
But I am not proud of the politically motivated misuse of our disciplinary procedures which becomes more blatant year by year. It's time this stopped.
That is the Rule which governs how members of UNISON can access legal advice, which is entirely within the discretion of the National Executive Council (delegated of course, for the most part, to officers).
I blogged before about a case in which the Union was found by the Certification Officer to have breached our Rules - in that case a Branch Secretary was criticised by the Certification Officer. Since that time the individual in question has served on our National Executive Council.
Not everyone who is accused of putting a foot wrong in our Union is treated so sympathetically.
Caroline Bedale from Manchester has been banned from holding UNISON office for 8 years.
All charges relate to the campaign to reinstate Karen Reissmann – who had been sacked by her employer (Manchester Mental Health Trust and Social Care Trust) – and who was supported by UNISON in this campaign, not just for reinstatement to her job but for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
Caroline Bedale has been found guilty by a UNISON Disciplinary Committee of charges relating to things she did after UNISON withdrew legal assistance from Karen Reissmann, just before Karen‟s case was due to be heard by an Employment Tribunal. The disciplinary penalty means she will be barred from holding union office for 8 years (i.e. for the rest of her working life!)
Legal assistance was withdrawn because Karen decided not to take some legal advice. Only the legal assistance was withdrawn – UNISON policy continued to support the campaign for Karen‟s reinstatement and for the right for trade union activists to speak out against cuts and privatisation.
These are two questions being posed by Karen's supporters;
What would you have done if your branch was under attack from a vindictive employer who had
sacked the Chairperson of your branch because of their trade union work and speaking out against cuts and privatisation?
Wouldn't you have been dismayed if, after an unprecedented strike by health workers and a
high profile union campaign for reinstatement, the union's legal assistance had been withdrawn? Given that the union policy of campaigning for Karen‟s reinstatement still continued wouldn't you have done what you could to defend and support her?
I know that I would always do my best to defend an activist in the branch - if we don't stick up for each other in circumstances like that we are done for.
Caroline faced three charges;
A: “Seeking to secure alternative legal advice and representation for Karen Reissmann, whose legal
advice and representation had been terminated by the Union”.
B: “campaigning against UNISON policy” – that policy is defined as “the decision of UNISON to
withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann” – and that Caroline has acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing.
C: “using UNISON resources to campaign against UNISON policy” – Caroline is said to have
campaigned against the Union‟s rules and policy, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the Union in so doing. It is not specified what rules she is meant to have campaigned against, and the „policy‟ is actually a „decision‟ not a policy.
This is because Caroline did the following things as a UNISON Branch Secretary;
1. At Karen‟s request, Caroline sent a letter to Salford Unemployed and Community Resource Centre (SUCRC) asking if they would “look into taking on” Karen‟s case if UNISON did not agree to continue the legal assistance. No UNISON funds were used for Karen‟s new legal representation.
2. As agreed by the Branch Committee, Caroline sent a letter to all branches in September 2008 to update them on Karen‟s case, and to say that the campaign continued for her reinstatement and for the right for trade unionists to speak out against cuts and privatisation. The letter asked branches to sign an open letter and petition to Ivan Lewis MP. A branch delegation together with the NW Regional Secretary, Frank Hont, was planning to meet him about Karen.
The letter mentioned that the Union had withdrawn legal assistance, and said that the Branch Committee “think this is a shame”. That was the only comment on the withdrawal of legal assistance – but this is said to be „campaigning against UNISON policy‟ and prejudicial to the union. There was NO campaign to get the union to reinstate legal assistance. There WAS a continuing campaign in support of Karen, supported at national, regional and branch levels. Caroline was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this letter, but was found to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the union.
I have to say, as a long serving UNISON Branch Secretary who is notoriously cautious about staying within the Rules I might very well have done the same. Caroline acted in good faith to defend a fellow activist and - had she known about the Certification Officer decision in the case of the London UNISON Branch Secretary she might have felt reassured that, even if she had committed some technical breach of Rule, the Union would stand by her.
Unfortunately she would have been wrong to have been reassured. It seems the Union takes a harsher view of someone who is held to have breached a Rule to try to help a member than it does when someone breaches a Rule in a way which could obstruct a member from receiving help (unless of course that it is the politics of the individual which makes the difference).
What takes the case almost into the realms of fantasy though are the allegations made by the Union about things she did in her own time and with her own resources.
3. She allowed her private telephone numbers to be used as the contact point on a press release from the independent „Reinstate Karen Reissmann Campaign‟.
4. Caroline sent an email from her own computer using her email to a closed discussion email group for members of the United Left in UNISON, to let them know what was happening in Karen‟s case. She said that legal assistance had been withdrawn and that there were attempts to persuade the union to reinstate legal support. This email is said to have been “in furtherance of a campaign against a decision of UNISON to withdraw legal representation from Karen Reissmann”. There was NO such campaign to try to get the legal representation reinstated. A comment in an email does not constitute a campaign. Again, she was found not guilty of breaking any rules by sending this email, but was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the union.
Caroline had every right to express her personal opinions in personal emails - and to allow her home telephone number to be used for a campaign. I have often used my own resources to book meetings, produce leaflets and organise campaign activities. Like Caroline, I am diligent about not using our Union's resources for purposes other than those specified in our Rule Book - but what I do in my own time with my own money and resources is my own business.
I have been proud to count Caroline as a friend and comrade over a number of years. She is an excellent and dedicated trade unionist and the sort of person upon which the movement depends. She has often been a critic of our leadership when it has been wrong - and has as often been foremost amongst our activists.
If we permit a good comrade to be hounded out of office in our Union then we shall be as guilty as those doing the hounding.
As a member of UNISON's National Executive Council re-elected for a fourth term I believe that there is a great deal of which we can be proud about in relation to our Union. We shall, over the next period, be the first and sometimes only line of defence around vital public services upon which some of the most vulnerable depend. I am proud to be a UNISON member.
But I am not proud of the politically motivated misuse of our disciplinary procedures which becomes more blatant year by year. It's time this stopped.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Time travel in UNISON
I explained here earlier my reservations about proposals for the scheme of representation at the first Conference (in just under a year's time) of UNISON's new Community Service Group.
This is an important event for an important part of our Union. Our 61,000 members in this Sector - even allowing for UNITE's claim to a membership around 60,000 are joined by perhaps half a million workers who need - but do not have - union organisation.
UNISON needs the Community Service Group to get off to a good start. More importantly, hundreds of thousands of working people need our trade union to get its act together and organise them.
So I was - and am - concerned that we are proposing a scheme of representation which gives the best organised half of the membership access to little more than 10% of the delegates places at the Conference.
At Wednesday's meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee I did not - in the end - push my opposition at the meeting to a vote which I could see that I would have lost because I was assured that the scheme before us had the approval of the UNISON National CVS Forum (as was indicated in the report circulated to us before our meeting on 11 November).
What I know now is that the CVS Forum did approve the proposals - at a meeting which began at 11am on Wednesday 11 November.
We were told that the CVS Forum had approved these proposals in a report circulated in advance of the D&O meeting - which began at 10am on Wednesday 11 November.
I can only conclude that a national official was able to travel back in time following the decision of the National CVS Forum on 11 November in order to inform the report circulated in advance of the D&O Committee meeting of the same date!
If UNISON officials have perfected time travel perhaps they will be looking to other events which they wish to influence...?
This is an important event for an important part of our Union. Our 61,000 members in this Sector - even allowing for UNITE's claim to a membership around 60,000 are joined by perhaps half a million workers who need - but do not have - union organisation.
UNISON needs the Community Service Group to get off to a good start. More importantly, hundreds of thousands of working people need our trade union to get its act together and organise them.
So I was - and am - concerned that we are proposing a scheme of representation which gives the best organised half of the membership access to little more than 10% of the delegates places at the Conference.
At Wednesday's meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee I did not - in the end - push my opposition at the meeting to a vote which I could see that I would have lost because I was assured that the scheme before us had the approval of the UNISON National CVS Forum (as was indicated in the report circulated to us before our meeting on 11 November).
What I know now is that the CVS Forum did approve the proposals - at a meeting which began at 11am on Wednesday 11 November.
We were told that the CVS Forum had approved these proposals in a report circulated in advance of the D&O meeting - which began at 10am on Wednesday 11 November.
I can only conclude that a national official was able to travel back in time following the decision of the National CVS Forum on 11 November in order to inform the report circulated in advance of the D&O Committee meeting of the same date!
If UNISON officials have perfected time travel perhaps they will be looking to other events which they wish to influence...?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Just because someone says it does not make it so..
A brief post to alert regular readers Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak to look out for detailed reports from today's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee - at which I learned an important lesson about the interpretation of the Union's Rules.
It was made clear that just because someone (a blogger perhaps?) says that something is in breach of the Rules that does not mean that it is.
However if someone else says that something is not in breach of the rules then that does mean that it is not.
The key factors in determining which is the authoritative interpretation of the Rules is that the true interpretation should be;
(a) louder;
(b) grumpier, and;
(c) delivered by someone sitting on the top table at the front of a meeting.
It was made clear that just because someone (a blogger perhaps?) says that something is in breach of the Rules that does not mean that it is.
However if someone else says that something is not in breach of the rules then that does mean that it is not.
The key factors in determining which is the authoritative interpretation of the Rules is that the true interpretation should be;
(a) louder;
(b) grumpier, and;
(c) delivered by someone sitting on the top table at the front of a meeting.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Forward to the late 1980s?
I suppose I have to get round eventually to apologising to every other delegate to last year's Local Government Service Group Conference - and now is as good a time as any.
Thanks to my interventions on behalf of my branch we won a card vote for a reference back of the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
(Please note that all those who - like me - enjoyed the last paragraph are plainly in need of medical help, along with regular readers Sid and Doris Pedant...)
Since Conference had been warned before agreeing the reference back that, were it do so, no business could be transacted until we had the vote, that threat had to be made good.
And so we were subject to a forty five minute presentation from delegates from Newcastle City (including Kenny) about their response to public spending cuts.
This amounted to telling us that they had discovered that sometimes you have to engage with the employer as they make spending cuts in order to limit the damage.
I first made myself unpopular with some comrades in Lambeth by advancing - and winning - that argument in 1988.
From my knowledge of employee relations in London local government in particular I know that this is what many of us have been doing for the last two decades. It's just that we don't normally go round in advance boasting about our bottom line in forthcoming negotiations. That is rarely helpful.
So, here comes the apology.
I am desperately sorry to hundreds of delegates that, because you rightly voted for reference back on my recommendation, you were subject to three quarters of an hour explaining why you have to do what you do already.
For those who are gluttons for punishment you can read more online.
In what may be totally unrelated news, UNISON's Northern Region is the worst performing Region when it comes to recruitment....
Thanks to my interventions on behalf of my branch we won a card vote for a reference back of the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
(Please note that all those who - like me - enjoyed the last paragraph are plainly in need of medical help, along with regular readers Sid and Doris Pedant...)
Since Conference had been warned before agreeing the reference back that, were it do so, no business could be transacted until we had the vote, that threat had to be made good.
And so we were subject to a forty five minute presentation from delegates from Newcastle City (including Kenny) about their response to public spending cuts.
This amounted to telling us that they had discovered that sometimes you have to engage with the employer as they make spending cuts in order to limit the damage.
I first made myself unpopular with some comrades in Lambeth by advancing - and winning - that argument in 1988.
From my knowledge of employee relations in London local government in particular I know that this is what many of us have been doing for the last two decades. It's just that we don't normally go round in advance boasting about our bottom line in forthcoming negotiations. That is rarely helpful.
So, here comes the apology.
I am desperately sorry to hundreds of delegates that, because you rightly voted for reference back on my recommendation, you were subject to three quarters of an hour explaining why you have to do what you do already.
For those who are gluttons for punishment you can read more online.
In what may be totally unrelated news, UNISON's Northern Region is the worst performing Region when it comes to recruitment....
Sunday, November 08, 2009
An online report from the Three Companies Project
It’s good to read some positive reporting of the work done in Sheffield last week as part of the “Three Companies” project with which the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is assisting UNISON in a drive to organise workers employed by Compass, Sodexho and Aramark.
In a few days the UNISON NEC Development and Organising Committee will receive a presentation on this project as we did not when we met in September (though others were better briefed).
After all the controversy surrounding inter-union disputes and the questionable conduct of the SEIU in the United States (and the dubious practices – such as agreements confidential from the membership - associated with similar organising drives on the other side of the Atlantic) it is refreshing to read something positive from one of the organisers on the ground.
I look forward to hearing how many workers we have recruited to UNISON in Sheffield last week and what our plans are to embed union organising and build the collective strength of employees in our target areas.
In a few days the UNISON NEC Development and Organising Committee will receive a presentation on this project as we did not when we met in September (though others were better briefed).
After all the controversy surrounding inter-union disputes and the questionable conduct of the SEIU in the United States (and the dubious practices – such as agreements confidential from the membership - associated with similar organising drives on the other side of the Atlantic) it is refreshing to read something positive from one of the organisers on the ground.
I look forward to hearing how many workers we have recruited to UNISON in Sheffield last week and what our plans are to embed union organising and build the collective strength of employees in our target areas.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Recruitment - modest good news
I will blog in full after Wednesday's meeting of the Development and Organisation about the discussion which I hope we will have around recruitment.
The good news is that UNISON membership is increasing, albeit at a relatively modest rate. However, given the job losses which are occurring in some of the areas in which we organise, the fact that we may exceed our target of 1.5% net growth for the year is very welcome.
There are some interesting questions which arise from the data which will be considered at the Committee meeting, some of which I have asked in advance.
It is interesting to consider the Regional variations in recruitment performance. What is it about the East Midlands that makes it the Region which is recruiting best and growing strongly, whereas our worst performing Region (the Northern Region) which has the same annual turnover of membership as the East Midlands is projected to shrink this year?
I am also interested in the balance to be struck between reaching out to organise the unorganised and seeking to raise our density in our core areas (remember that a majority of the directly employed workforce of the London boroughs are not members of any trade union!). I worry that we sometimes get carried away being "forward looking" and facing up to the increasing fracturing of public service provision and so lose a focus on recruiting in our core employers.
If we want to be in a position to evaluate our organising efforts we cannot measure success purely in numbers. Trade union members do not join a union as an end in itself but as a means to the end of promoting our collective interests. We need to measure our effectiveness against a number of indicators, including density, developments on pay, pensions, conditions and job security and the breadth and depth of coverage of collective bargaining in the areas in which we organise.
The fact that potential trade union members are looking at the union for what collective organisation can deliver for their interests is borne out by the fact that the biggest spikes in recruitment occur around major national disputes.
The Tories are coming for the Local Government Pension Scheme. Last time our pension was attacked we took action - and we recruited many more members to our Union. This is an issue around which we should aim to recruit the many thousands of local government workers who are not in a trade union.
The good news is that UNISON membership is increasing, albeit at a relatively modest rate. However, given the job losses which are occurring in some of the areas in which we organise, the fact that we may exceed our target of 1.5% net growth for the year is very welcome.
There are some interesting questions which arise from the data which will be considered at the Committee meeting, some of which I have asked in advance.
It is interesting to consider the Regional variations in recruitment performance. What is it about the East Midlands that makes it the Region which is recruiting best and growing strongly, whereas our worst performing Region (the Northern Region) which has the same annual turnover of membership as the East Midlands is projected to shrink this year?
I am also interested in the balance to be struck between reaching out to organise the unorganised and seeking to raise our density in our core areas (remember that a majority of the directly employed workforce of the London boroughs are not members of any trade union!). I worry that we sometimes get carried away being "forward looking" and facing up to the increasing fracturing of public service provision and so lose a focus on recruiting in our core employers.
If we want to be in a position to evaluate our organising efforts we cannot measure success purely in numbers. Trade union members do not join a union as an end in itself but as a means to the end of promoting our collective interests. We need to measure our effectiveness against a number of indicators, including density, developments on pay, pensions, conditions and job security and the breadth and depth of coverage of collective bargaining in the areas in which we organise.
The fact that potential trade union members are looking at the union for what collective organisation can deliver for their interests is borne out by the fact that the biggest spikes in recruitment occur around major national disputes.
The Tories are coming for the Local Government Pension Scheme. Last time our pension was attacked we took action - and we recruited many more members to our Union. This is an issue around which we should aim to recruit the many thousands of local government workers who are not in a trade union.
Three companies - more than one opinion
The semi-official and mostly anonymous "UNISON Active" blog has its undergarments entangled over a story in Tribune today and therefore manages to miss all the important points.
The unnamed blogger over at UNISON Active is all angry. Not at the employers who profit out of low paid labour, nor at the Government which keeps in place the labour legislation to permit that. No - the nameless blogger reserves their ire for Tribune who have dared to report on a letter sent to UNISON by US Union UNITE HERE (about which regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger know already).
The author of the anonymous contribution over at UNISON Active really needs to go and have a lie down.
The Three Companies Project appears to be a worthwhile initiative about which I have blogged before - albeit it would have been nice if the project had been reported back in UNISON's lay structures before it appeared ("semi-officially") online.
I am looking forward to a presentation about the project at Wednesday's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee.
The dispute between UNITE HERE and the SEIU is not however irrelevant to the global trade union movement and we cannot simply ignore the compelling evidence of widespread support for UNITE HERE against the predatory behaviour of the larger union.
The unnamed blogger over at UNISON Active is all angry. Not at the employers who profit out of low paid labour, nor at the Government which keeps in place the labour legislation to permit that. No - the nameless blogger reserves their ire for Tribune who have dared to report on a letter sent to UNISON by US Union UNITE HERE (about which regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger know already).
The author of the anonymous contribution over at UNISON Active really needs to go and have a lie down.
The Three Companies Project appears to be a worthwhile initiative about which I have blogged before - albeit it would have been nice if the project had been reported back in UNISON's lay structures before it appeared ("semi-officially") online.
I am looking forward to a presentation about the project at Wednesday's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee.
The dispute between UNITE HERE and the SEIU is not however irrelevant to the global trade union movement and we cannot simply ignore the compelling evidence of widespread support for UNITE HERE against the predatory behaviour of the larger union.
Service Group Autonomy?
Next week's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee of the UNISON NEC will consider the annual report on the scheme of representation for delegates at UNISON National Delegate Conference (as we did last year and every year).
I shall probably be one of those who will ask colleagues to consider making that scheme a little more flexible, and I shall probably find myself in a minority on that question.
However this year the Committee is being asked to agree that the scheme of representation which we agree for National Delegate Conference shall apply also to Service Group Conferences.
Under Rule D.1.3 it is for the NEC to draw up the scheme of representation for National Delegate Conference but under Rule D.3.4.5 it is for the Service Group Executive to draw up a scheme of representation for Service Group Conference to be approved by the Service Group Conference itself.
If the NEC were to seek to impose a scheme of representation upon Service Groups we would be negating this explicit provision of our Rule Book and infringing upon the autonomy of Service Groups.
Even if this year's Chairs and Secretaries of the Service Groups could be gathered together to assent to the NEC dictating to Service Groups how they should structure their Conferences in this way that would not rewrite the Rules which provide explicitly for the autonomy of Service Groups.
UNISON is a large trade union and our members need to be able to identify their Union with their own particular interests - this was part of the reason for the new Rule Book definition of an occupational group agreed at this year's Conference.
The Rule Change that the NEC could not even get a simple majority for (concerning the devolution of bargaining responsibility to Sectors before we had proper structures for democratic accountability) fell because UNISON members want devolved and democratic structures which don't just take the Union out to the members but also ensure that it is under their control.
That control cannot be exercised simply through the NEC, other parts of our democratic machinery also have their legitimate roles and spheres of influence.
It seems to me that an attempt by the NEC (in the name of "consistency") to dictate to Service Groups how they should be represented at their Conferences flies directly in the face of the message that Conference tried to give us in June.
I would be interested to know if any of you other UNISON members out there (including regular readers Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak) are concerned about this point. I think you probably should be.
I shall probably be one of those who will ask colleagues to consider making that scheme a little more flexible, and I shall probably find myself in a minority on that question.
However this year the Committee is being asked to agree that the scheme of representation which we agree for National Delegate Conference shall apply also to Service Group Conferences.
Under Rule D.1.3 it is for the NEC to draw up the scheme of representation for National Delegate Conference but under Rule D.3.4.5 it is for the Service Group Executive to draw up a scheme of representation for Service Group Conference to be approved by the Service Group Conference itself.
If the NEC were to seek to impose a scheme of representation upon Service Groups we would be negating this explicit provision of our Rule Book and infringing upon the autonomy of Service Groups.
Even if this year's Chairs and Secretaries of the Service Groups could be gathered together to assent to the NEC dictating to Service Groups how they should structure their Conferences in this way that would not rewrite the Rules which provide explicitly for the autonomy of Service Groups.
UNISON is a large trade union and our members need to be able to identify their Union with their own particular interests - this was part of the reason for the new Rule Book definition of an occupational group agreed at this year's Conference.
The Rule Change that the NEC could not even get a simple majority for (concerning the devolution of bargaining responsibility to Sectors before we had proper structures for democratic accountability) fell because UNISON members want devolved and democratic structures which don't just take the Union out to the members but also ensure that it is under their control.
That control cannot be exercised simply through the NEC, other parts of our democratic machinery also have their legitimate roles and spheres of influence.
It seems to me that an attempt by the NEC (in the name of "consistency") to dictate to Service Groups how they should be represented at their Conferences flies directly in the face of the message that Conference tried to give us in June.
I would be interested to know if any of you other UNISON members out there (including regular readers Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak) are concerned about this point. I think you probably should be.
UNISON Community Service Group Conference
I have been reading my papers for next week's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) and would be interested in the views of other UNISON members (particularly those working in the Community and Voluntary Sector) about proposals for the first Conference of the new Community Service Group.
UNISON has about 60,000 members in the new Service Group, half of whom are in 28 branches which have more than 500 members of the Service Group. The other half are scattered throughout 610 branches with fewer than 500 Service Group members (and an average of just 50).
Next week's Committee is going to be asked to support a proposal to allow one delegate per 500 members or part thereof, meaning that the best organised half of the membership of the Service Group would be entitled to just over ten per cent of the delegates at the Conference.
My initial view is that I think that this proposal falls down in terms both of equity and effectiveness and that a better option would be to group those branches with few members of the Service Group in Regional delegations.
Once the Service Group is established then under Rule it will be for the Service Group Executive to work out a scheme of representation for their Service Group Conference (to be approved by the Conference) but since there obviously is not a Service Group Executive for a newly formed Service Group the decision about the first Community Service Group Conference has to fall to the NEC.
I would be very interested in the views of UNISON members ahead of Wednesday's Committee meeting.
UNISON has about 60,000 members in the new Service Group, half of whom are in 28 branches which have more than 500 members of the Service Group. The other half are scattered throughout 610 branches with fewer than 500 Service Group members (and an average of just 50).
Next week's Committee is going to be asked to support a proposal to allow one delegate per 500 members or part thereof, meaning that the best organised half of the membership of the Service Group would be entitled to just over ten per cent of the delegates at the Conference.
My initial view is that I think that this proposal falls down in terms both of equity and effectiveness and that a better option would be to group those branches with few members of the Service Group in Regional delegations.
Once the Service Group is established then under Rule it will be for the Service Group Executive to work out a scheme of representation for their Service Group Conference (to be approved by the Conference) but since there obviously is not a Service Group Executive for a newly formed Service Group the decision about the first Community Service Group Conference has to fall to the NEC.
I would be very interested in the views of UNISON members ahead of Wednesday's Committee meeting.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Not a penny off the pay! Not a minute on the day!
As I mentioned last week one of the stewards involved in the Leeds strike has been in London this week.
Glenn - the steward in question - has done three consecutive evenings of speaking at meetings about the dispute and has inspired and motivated a number of London trade unionists.
We need to get delegations of strikers down to London on a regular basis so that we can further publicise the dispute and raise funds to alleviate the hardship our members are experiencing on strike.
The Grauniad had a handle on the complexity of the dispute which the Council Leader didn't like but listening to Glenn I have been reminded how simple this dispute is.
Some workers are being expected to take a pay cut of up to one third - and the employer's latest offer is that they should work impossibly hard if they want to preserve their earnings.
I think there is a slogan for this...
Glenn - the steward in question - has done three consecutive evenings of speaking at meetings about the dispute and has inspired and motivated a number of London trade unionists.
We need to get delegations of strikers down to London on a regular basis so that we can further publicise the dispute and raise funds to alleviate the hardship our members are experiencing on strike.
The Grauniad had a handle on the complexity of the dispute which the Council Leader didn't like but listening to Glenn I have been reminded how simple this dispute is.
Some workers are being expected to take a pay cut of up to one third - and the employer's latest offer is that they should work impossibly hard if they want to preserve their earnings.
I think there is a slogan for this...
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
UNISON Review of the effectiveness of our political funds
If regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger agree that you can give yourself a hat tip I will acknowledge that this story is already on the Lambeth UNISON blog.
All UNISON branches have until 13 November to send their comments in response to the consultation document (available online here).
All UNISON branches have until 13 November to send their comments in response to the consultation document (available online here).
1. The following are the comments from the Lambeth local government branch in response to the consultation questions in the document on the review of UNISON’s political funds, as agreed by our Branch Committee on 3 November 2009.
– what are the most important political and policy making processes affecting UNISON and its members?
– how will political, constitutional and policy changes impact on the union’s objectives and interests over the next five years?
– in what ways should branches, regions and the national union change their methods of campaigning and political organisation to meet these challenges?
2. The election of the UK Government, local authorities and devolved administrations are vitally important to UNISON members. The failure of New Labour and the likely election of a Conservative Government will presage serious attacks upon our members. At the same time the Labour Party is failing to adopt policies which reflect our members’ interests. The Union therefore needs to adopt a more independent approach politically.
– why do many branches not see the GPF and/or Labour Link as resources to help them lobby and campaign?
– how can we increase regional and branch engagement with the General Political Fund?
– how can we further strengthen regional and local Labour Link organisation?
3. The Union makes it unnecessarily difficult for branches to access political fund resources – branches should have an automatic entitlement to some political fund resources each year. Members will not engage with UNISON Labour Link whilst they see the Labour Party pursuing policies which attack the interests of our members.
– what resources and support do UNISON reps need to engage members and organise them to take political action?
– what kind of political education should be included in core training for stewards and organising staff?
– should we develop short courses for lead activists and organising staff on labour movement history and contemporary political issues?
4. UNISON needs to change its culture to one that encourages campaigning away from a “top down” officer-led culture which seeks to restrict campaigning by branches. The history of the trade union movement should be central to trade union education.
– what do members, branches, and lead activists need or want to know about the union’s political work, and how would this best be communicated to them?
– how could union communications better promote transparency and understanding of the operations of the General Political Fund and
Labour Link?
– how could union communications better encourage engagement and participation by members and branches in the union’s political work?
5. The Union should implement Conference policy and monitor and report on the voting record of politicians associated with our Union. Members need to know whether the politicians who benefit by their association with our Union support our policies. Members in local branches should have a direct input into decisions about which politicians UNISON supports and works with.
– is there more we need to do to ensure that subscription and allocation procedures are transparent?
– is there more we can do to encourage the greatest possible participation in the two sections of the political fund?
6. Members should not be allocated into the Affiliated Political Fund unless they make a deliberate choice to pay into the Labour Party. Branches should have direct control over some of the General Political Fund which should be available to be spent in accordance with the decisions of quorate Branch or Branch Committee meetings. The Union has to face up to the fact that if the proportion of members choosing to pay into the Affiliated Fund falls much below the present proportion (one third) it will no longer be tenable to maintain that UNISON is affiliated to the Labour Party.
– are existing structures for the governance of the General Political Fund adequate to ensure transparency, accountability and engagement?
– how can we encourage a higher level of participation in Labour Link structures at branch, regional and national level?
– are there ways in which we can improve the accountability and responsiveness of both Labour Link and the GPF to wider union
structures at local, regional, devolved and national levels?
7. There should be a single-section political fund under the control of National Delegate Conference and the separate structures for each section of the fund should be abolished. The existing structures were designed, prior to vesting day in 1993, specifically to avoid transparency, accountability and engagement and cannot be reformed.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Support the Leeds strikers!
This is the text of a message I have sent to UNISON branches in Greater London for whom I have email addresses this evening. If you are a UNISON member in Greater London please do all you can to ensure that your branch responds to the call from our General Secretary for solidarity and support.
All UNISON branches will be receiving an appeal from our General Secretary to support members in Leeds local government branch whose strike action against the threat of massive pay cuts has now entered its eighth week (as reported on our website). If you have not yet received the letter a copy can be downloaded at http://www.unison.org.uk/Acrobat/C5723.pdf.
Through a fellow member of our National Executive Council I have been put in touch with a striker from the Leeds branch who will be available to address meetings in London on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evening next week. I am therefore writing to ask if any branches who have meetings on those evenings at which they would welcome a speaker (or could – for example – solicit an invitation to a Trades Council meeting on one of those evenings) please to let me know by email so that I can arrange an itinerary of meetings for our guest from Leeds.
The most important thing that we can do is to raise money to sustain our members in taking a stand against a hostile and aggressive employer. Therefore invitations to meetings at which collections can be taken or donations agreed will be particularly welcome. Donations to the hardship fund can be marked for the attention of Loraine Senior and sent to UNISON, Yorkshire and Humberside Region, Commerce House, Wade Lane, Leeds LS2 8NJ. Cheques should be made payable to UNISON Yorkshire and Humberside Region.
I hope that branches will want to take up this opportunity to hear directly from one of our members taking official strike action in Leeds. Please contact me at this email address or at jonrogers1963@googlemail.com if you can offer an invitation to a meeting on Monday 2, Tuesday 3 or Thursday 5 November.
Monday, October 26, 2009
UniteHere write to UNISON about the SEIU
My half-term activities have been briefly interrupted by an interesting letter from John Wilhelm, President of US trade union Unite Here to our General Secretary Dave Prentis concerning our cooperation with the Service Employees International Union (the SEIU) on the Three Companies Project.
Mr Wilhelm warns of "the SEIU’s unprecedented attack on our union, which has isolated SEIU within the US labor movement and alienated many of its community allies".
He goes on as follows;
"Beginning last fall, if not earlier, Andy Stern and other top SEIU officers helped coordinate a plan to split UNITE HERE members, remove assets and later announced their intention to organize “competitively” in UNITE HERE’s core hotel, gaming and food service sectors. SEIU officers, including Tom Woodruff and Mike Fishman, have been involved in various stages of this effort, including advocating secession at UNITE HERE membership meetings earlier this year.
Their tactics, the likes of which we would expect only from anti-union employers, include sending
mailers to our members throughout North America suggesting that we are neglecting our membership while we defend our union from SEIU’s attacks, directing robo-calls and live calls to our members’ homes, and attacking our union and its leadership through front groups and attack websites. Worse, SEIU has attempted to raid our current membership through attempts to raid existing UNITE HERE units as they are currently doing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where we have long represented 2,300 school cafeteria workers. This summer, SEIU even stooped to disrupting new hotel organizing campaigns in Arizona and Texas".
Whilst I have made clear previously that I can see no principled objection to UNISON working with SEIU in order to learn from their organising tactics, this significant approach from another trade union poses important new questions which need to be answered.
For example Mr Wihelm suggests that SEIU currently organise relatively few workers in the three companies who are the subject of the joint organising project with UNISON - and makes concrete and alarming allegations about how the SEIU have gone about organising in those companies in what he describes as a failed partnership with Unite Here (Service Workers United - SWU);
"The Big 3 companies were allowed to determine sites the unions could organize – making it impossible to build significant union density in any particular city or region or position workers to fight for better standards.
Boilerplate contracts locked workers into substandard agreements – and created situations where workers organized under the SWU agreement, earning low wages with minimal benefits, are working side-by-side with other union members who had won significantly higher contractual standards from the same employer.
Woodruff designed SWU in part to bypass our existing strong food service locals (similar to your regional offices), which had the effect of limiting worker involvement in their union. Instead, SWU members are directed to a New York-based call center for help with grievances and problems on the job. This is hardly a way to build strong local leadership or high standards.
SWU abandoned the system of “lined-up” or coordinated collective bargaining agreement expirations, which had been a major source of leverage for workers in this industry in cities with significant union density. (In North America, collective agreements re-open every few years and must be renegotiated with employers. For years prior to the partnership with SEIU, workers had
fought to line-up their contract expirations in New York City, New England and other areas, as a means of maximizing their bargaining leverage.)"
These criticisms have been widely voiced.
As an aside this system of organising in conjunction with private employers and of a top down union bypassing its own democratic structures is the sort of thing we have to beware of in our Union, where I can see its easy appeal to those whose priority is the union as an institution rather than an organisation to pursue workers' interests.
I have written to the Project Sponsor for the Three Companies project to ask about UNISON's response. I do not think we should walk away from joint work with the SEIU just because they may have done some dodgy things (allegedly). However I do think that UNISON could follow the lead of twenty six leaders of US trade unions who have signed a statement in support of Unite Here following the raids on that union by the SEIU.
This statement commits signatories as follows;
"We pledge to support Unite Here, both materially and morally, against a raid by any union against Unite Here members, or workers in Unite Here’s industry jurisdictions.
We further pledge our support for Unite Here if any employer seeks to take advantage of the current situation, especially if an employer forces a strike or lockout.
We urge an amicable, quick settlement of the current conflict".
Signatories include the President of another sister union of UNISON - AFSCME who was one of the first fifteen signatories.
Some similar statement (from UNISON) of support for Unite Here in the face of the conduct of the SEIU as described by Mr Wilhelm would now seem to be appropriate.
Details of the allegations against the SEIU are available online at a site hosted by Unite Here.
Update Tuesday morning - an alternative (pro SEIU and anti Unite Here) view is also online here.
Update Thursday evening. Dave Prentis replied to the letter yesterday to make the following points;
First he is concerned that the letter was sent directly to members of the NEC (who are, after all, only the governing body of the Union...)
Secondly, the "three companies" project is just an organising project under the auspices of the IUF catering group with which the SEIU are helping UNISON with expertise rather than resources.
Thirdly, the dispute between the SEIU and UNITE HERE is not a matter for UNISON and if our assistance is wanted an approach should be made by the AFL-CIO to the TUC.
Given the global aspirations of the SEIU - and that the principles of trade unionism are international - I think this may lead to further questions at our next NEC.
Mr Wilhelm warns of "the SEIU’s unprecedented attack on our union, which has isolated SEIU within the US labor movement and alienated many of its community allies".
He goes on as follows;
"Beginning last fall, if not earlier, Andy Stern and other top SEIU officers helped coordinate a plan to split UNITE HERE members, remove assets and later announced their intention to organize “competitively” in UNITE HERE’s core hotel, gaming and food service sectors. SEIU officers, including Tom Woodruff and Mike Fishman, have been involved in various stages of this effort, including advocating secession at UNITE HERE membership meetings earlier this year.
Their tactics, the likes of which we would expect only from anti-union employers, include sending
mailers to our members throughout North America suggesting that we are neglecting our membership while we defend our union from SEIU’s attacks, directing robo-calls and live calls to our members’ homes, and attacking our union and its leadership through front groups and attack websites. Worse, SEIU has attempted to raid our current membership through attempts to raid existing UNITE HERE units as they are currently doing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where we have long represented 2,300 school cafeteria workers. This summer, SEIU even stooped to disrupting new hotel organizing campaigns in Arizona and Texas".
Whilst I have made clear previously that I can see no principled objection to UNISON working with SEIU in order to learn from their organising tactics, this significant approach from another trade union poses important new questions which need to be answered.
For example Mr Wihelm suggests that SEIU currently organise relatively few workers in the three companies who are the subject of the joint organising project with UNISON - and makes concrete and alarming allegations about how the SEIU have gone about organising in those companies in what he describes as a failed partnership with Unite Here (Service Workers United - SWU);
"The Big 3 companies were allowed to determine sites the unions could organize – making it impossible to build significant union density in any particular city or region or position workers to fight for better standards.
Boilerplate contracts locked workers into substandard agreements – and created situations where workers organized under the SWU agreement, earning low wages with minimal benefits, are working side-by-side with other union members who had won significantly higher contractual standards from the same employer.
Woodruff designed SWU in part to bypass our existing strong food service locals (similar to your regional offices), which had the effect of limiting worker involvement in their union. Instead, SWU members are directed to a New York-based call center for help with grievances and problems on the job. This is hardly a way to build strong local leadership or high standards.
SWU abandoned the system of “lined-up” or coordinated collective bargaining agreement expirations, which had been a major source of leverage for workers in this industry in cities with significant union density. (In North America, collective agreements re-open every few years and must be renegotiated with employers. For years prior to the partnership with SEIU, workers had
fought to line-up their contract expirations in New York City, New England and other areas, as a means of maximizing their bargaining leverage.)"
These criticisms have been widely voiced.
As an aside this system of organising in conjunction with private employers and of a top down union bypassing its own democratic structures is the sort of thing we have to beware of in our Union, where I can see its easy appeal to those whose priority is the union as an institution rather than an organisation to pursue workers' interests.
I have written to the Project Sponsor for the Three Companies project to ask about UNISON's response. I do not think we should walk away from joint work with the SEIU just because they may have done some dodgy things (allegedly). However I do think that UNISON could follow the lead of twenty six leaders of US trade unions who have signed a statement in support of Unite Here following the raids on that union by the SEIU.
This statement commits signatories as follows;
"We pledge to support Unite Here, both materially and morally, against a raid by any union against Unite Here members, or workers in Unite Here’s industry jurisdictions.
We further pledge our support for Unite Here if any employer seeks to take advantage of the current situation, especially if an employer forces a strike or lockout.
We urge an amicable, quick settlement of the current conflict".
Signatories include the President of another sister union of UNISON - AFSCME who was one of the first fifteen signatories.
Some similar statement (from UNISON) of support for Unite Here in the face of the conduct of the SEIU as described by Mr Wilhelm would now seem to be appropriate.
Details of the allegations against the SEIU are available online at a site hosted by Unite Here.
Update Tuesday morning - an alternative (pro SEIU and anti Unite Here) view is also online here.
Update Thursday evening. Dave Prentis replied to the letter yesterday to make the following points;
First he is concerned that the letter was sent directly to members of the NEC (who are, after all, only the governing body of the Union...)
Secondly, the "three companies" project is just an organising project under the auspices of the IUF catering group with which the SEIU are helping UNISON with expertise rather than resources.
Thirdly, the dispute between the SEIU and UNITE HERE is not a matter for UNISON and if our assistance is wanted an approach should be made by the AFL-CIO to the TUC.
Given the global aspirations of the SEIU - and that the principles of trade unionism are international - I think this may lead to further questions at our next NEC.
Half-term :)
Sunday, October 25, 2009
On a war footing
We need to be clear that the Government (whoever wins the next election the Government always gets in) will be attacking our members.
There is no hope for peace.
There is no scope for "partnership".
We have no option.
We must prepare our members for a fight.
The posties are in the first line.
We all stand behind them.
There is no hope for peace.
There is no scope for "partnership".
We have no option.
We must prepare our members for a fight.
The posties are in the first line.
We all stand behind them.
Transformational Leadership?
If people start blogging about "transformational leadership" they must expect people to wonder whether they want to be the next Deputy General Secretary!
Others joining in may have lesser ambitions but we could still be left wondering why bloggers anonymous are so keen on promoting the sensible analysis of good socialist Gregor Gall who praises "transformational leadership" which "creates trust, admiration, loyalty and respect so that followers are prepared to do more than they expected at the outset".
Am I alone in finding it scary that my trade union is organising training for people already elected to our leading bodies so that they can live up to this aspiration? Surely we should be transformational leaders before we aspire to be elected to the National Executive or the Service Group Executive?
Of course if anyone really wants to create trust, admiration, loyalty and respect then they could sensibly start by taking a stand against the politically motivated misuse of UNISON's disciplinary procedures (as I may have mentioned now and again and again and again).
For the avoidance of doubt this comment is addressed to all those seeking to replace our General Secretary whenever we finally do have an election.
Others joining in may have lesser ambitions but we could still be left wondering why bloggers anonymous are so keen on promoting the sensible analysis of good socialist Gregor Gall who praises "transformational leadership" which "creates trust, admiration, loyalty and respect so that followers are prepared to do more than they expected at the outset".
Am I alone in finding it scary that my trade union is organising training for people already elected to our leading bodies so that they can live up to this aspiration? Surely we should be transformational leaders before we aspire to be elected to the National Executive or the Service Group Executive?
Of course if anyone really wants to create trust, admiration, loyalty and respect then they could sensibly start by taking a stand against the politically motivated misuse of UNISON's disciplinary procedures (as I may have mentioned now and again and again and again).
For the avoidance of doubt this comment is addressed to all those seeking to replace our General Secretary whenever we finally do have an election.
Rule M?
For anyone who thought I was working my way through the UNISON Rule Book in alphabetical order - I do not want to disappoint you...
Rule M6.4 states that "A member seeking to enforce her/his rights under the Data Protection Act must apply to the General Secretary"
This is a Rule Book provision to which I had regard when I was myself subject to unreasonable disciplinary action as a result of the deliberate rewriting of a report written by a decent official (by another official to whom that adjective could not be applied).
In fact I recall that the Union's representative was almost disappointed when I said that I no longer intended to pursue my request for data (at some cost to the Union) once the disciplinary action (promoted by the official to whom the adjective did not apply) had been dropped.
Not to worry mate. I think you'll have a few more such requests soon if you cannot control the outrageous and unreasonable behaviour of subordinates.
Rule M6.4 states that "A member seeking to enforce her/his rights under the Data Protection Act must apply to the General Secretary"
This is a Rule Book provision to which I had regard when I was myself subject to unreasonable disciplinary action as a result of the deliberate rewriting of a report written by a decent official (by another official to whom that adjective could not be applied).
In fact I recall that the Union's representative was almost disappointed when I said that I no longer intended to pursue my request for data (at some cost to the Union) once the disciplinary action (promoted by the official to whom the adjective did not apply) had been dropped.
Not to worry mate. I think you'll have a few more such requests soon if you cannot control the outrageous and unreasonable behaviour of subordinates.
What was that about Rule K?
Diligent readers (Sid and Doris Fourth-International) will have noticed an earlier post about UNISON Rule K also interrupted for food and may have wondered why I posted that.
It may of course be an error to see any method in the posting of information on this blog, but on the optimistic assumption that that is not always the case I offer the following observations.
What has always struck me about the particular case linked to in the earlier post is the sensible generosity of spirit obviously demonstrated by the Union when a lay activist made an understandable error arising from his lack of balance in assessing a difficult situation. Let's face it we can all make mistakes!
I have made more than one mistake myself (hard as you may find that to believe dear reader) and on only one occasion have foolish reactionaries in the Union been given (temporarily) authority to try to expel me for my error. You may remember my going on about this here before.
The reason why I am taking up your computer screen (or BlackBerry or mobile screen!) to mention this now is that it is coming to my attention that a far less sympathetic and reasonable approach may now being taken in another case, about which I shall blog further as details become clear.
And when I do I will ask the question you would ask.
Why?
It may of course be an error to see any method in the posting of information on this blog, but on the optimistic assumption that that is not always the case I offer the following observations.
What has always struck me about the particular case linked to in the earlier post is the sensible generosity of spirit obviously demonstrated by the Union when a lay activist made an understandable error arising from his lack of balance in assessing a difficult situation. Let's face it we can all make mistakes!
I have made more than one mistake myself (hard as you may find that to believe dear reader) and on only one occasion have foolish reactionaries in the Union been given (temporarily) authority to try to expel me for my error. You may remember my going on about this here before.
The reason why I am taking up your computer screen (or BlackBerry or mobile screen!) to mention this now is that it is coming to my attention that a far less sympathetic and reasonable approach may now being taken in another case, about which I shall blog further as details become clear.
And when I do I will ask the question you would ask.
Why?
What was that about Rule J?
Apologies to regular readers (Sid and Doris diner) for interrupting an earlier post for food.
I was mentioning inconsistencies in how we - as a Union - have dealt with breaches of Rule J.
Six weeks or so ago I wrote to the Chairs of UNISON's NEC Finance and Labour Link Committees as follows;
"I am writing to you as Chairs of Finance and Labour Link with a copy to the President and relevant officers.
I have been passed a copy of UNISON's submission to the Certification Officer in the case of Bakhsh -v- Unison CO/736T/7/2009.
This discloses at paragraph 25 that, in respect of some particular payments made by the former Glasgow Community Health Branch, our Union has arranged for a sum of £2,184.41 to be transferred from the Affiliated Political Fund into the general funds.
I note also that the document's author has felt it necessary to state at paragraph 26 that "nothing was withheld" from the NEC.
I have been a member of our NEC at the material time and do not immediately recollect the reporting of this transfer of funds to the NEC.
Please may I request that you remind me when this matter was reported to our NEC and arrange for me to be supplied with a copy of the relevant report and/or minute?"
Having not received a written response as at the October meeting of the NEC I repeated my request.
Had I received an answer I could have reported on that (if appropriate).
As it is all I can do is observe that, as an elected member of our NEC, I have not yet had a written answer.
Anyone would think we were concealing evidence of wrongdoing for fear of embarrassing friendly MPs whilst at the same time villifying (or is that castigating) those who make similar errors in favour of a party other than the Labour Party...
I was mentioning inconsistencies in how we - as a Union - have dealt with breaches of Rule J.
Six weeks or so ago I wrote to the Chairs of UNISON's NEC Finance and Labour Link Committees as follows;
"I am writing to you as Chairs of Finance and Labour Link with a copy to the President and relevant officers.
I have been passed a copy of UNISON's submission to the Certification Officer in the case of Bakhsh -v- Unison CO/736T/7/2009.
This discloses at paragraph 25 that, in respect of some particular payments made by the former Glasgow Community Health Branch, our Union has arranged for a sum of £2,184.41 to be transferred from the Affiliated Political Fund into the general funds.
I note also that the document's author has felt it necessary to state at paragraph 26 that "nothing was withheld" from the NEC.
I have been a member of our NEC at the material time and do not immediately recollect the reporting of this transfer of funds to the NEC.
Please may I request that you remind me when this matter was reported to our NEC and arrange for me to be supplied with a copy of the relevant report and/or minute?"
Having not received a written response as at the October meeting of the NEC I repeated my request.
Had I received an answer I could have reported on that (if appropriate).
As it is all I can do is observe that, as an elected member of our NEC, I have not yet had a written answer.
Anyone would think we were concealing evidence of wrongdoing for fear of embarrassing friendly MPs whilst at the same time villifying (or is that castigating) those who make similar errors in favour of a party other than the Labour Party...
The uses and abuses of UNISON Rule K
Continuing the alphabetical theme I think it is reassuring to many UNISON activists to know that should it happen that we breach Rule K (and perhaps Rule I) we need not be villified (or castigated) - or even disciplined - by our Union.
After all - we have seen the treatment of a London UNISON Branch Secretary found to have breached our Rules.
As to whether this treatment would be handed out consistently to all activists in London regardless of their political views, I would comment on that now but am just about to eat pudding so I shall have to come back to this point.
After all - we have seen the treatment of a London UNISON Branch Secretary found to have breached our Rules.
As to whether this treatment would be handed out consistently to all activists in London regardless of their political views, I would comment on that now but am just about to eat pudding so I shall have to come back to this point.
The uses and abuses of UNISON Rule J
Some years ago UNISON solicited a complaint against ourselves to the Certification Officer because a branch had paid out money to the Socialist Workers Party in breach of Rule J.
More recently it has come to light that members paid money to an internal Labour Party campaign out of branch funds in breach of the same Rule.
But no one from within UNISON HQ has solicited a similar complaint to the Certification Officer.
I would blog more on this now but my food is cooked so you'll just have to wait...
More recently it has come to light that members paid money to an internal Labour Party campaign out of branch funds in breach of the same Rule.
But no one from within UNISON HQ has solicited a similar complaint to the Certification Officer.
I would blog more on this now but my food is cooked so you'll just have to wait...
A Briefing on the post strike - and the role of the TUC...
After an absence of several years I today attended a meeting of the Editorial Board (EB) of the entirely admirable Labour Briefing at which I heard a first hand report of the post dispute from a London postal worker.
The CWU members are solid in their support for the position of the union in the dispute – and in London where members have already lost a lot of money through extensive intermittent action the mood is one of relief that this is now a national dispute.
It seems likely that the employer's scheme to recruit temps to scab will work as long as the temps are not used on strike days themselves but only to clear the backlog on other days (although this will be for the courts to decide).
Activists believe that members could be persuaded to move to indefinite strike action in order to bring the employers to heel, but that this would depend upon clear leadership. The approach of Billy Hayes and Dave Ward to date does not suggest that they share this confidence or perspective.
It was widely agreed that it is bizarre that the TUC are offering to broker talks (and that the employers are willing to attend talks at the TUC but not at ACAS). This tells us that the TUC does not wish to be a real trade union centre (co-ordinating solidarity when workers are in dispute) but prefer to be a bargain basement alternative to ACAS.
Presumably Royal Mail will attend talks at the TUC (whilst refusing ACAS) because they think they can count on Brendan Barber to lean on Billy Hayes to offer further concessions in a way that the professional conciliators at ACAS would not do.
Maybe the civil service unions who organise the ACAS workforce should be complaining to the TUC about this blatant theft of their work?
All present at the Briefing EB agreed that our task is to support workers in struggle and to try to do what we can to help them achieve their objectives, not to “resolve their dispute”. It is a shame that the TUC appears not to recognise this!
The CWU members are solid in their support for the position of the union in the dispute – and in London where members have already lost a lot of money through extensive intermittent action the mood is one of relief that this is now a national dispute.
It seems likely that the employer's scheme to recruit temps to scab will work as long as the temps are not used on strike days themselves but only to clear the backlog on other days (although this will be for the courts to decide).
Activists believe that members could be persuaded to move to indefinite strike action in order to bring the employers to heel, but that this would depend upon clear leadership. The approach of Billy Hayes and Dave Ward to date does not suggest that they share this confidence or perspective.
It was widely agreed that it is bizarre that the TUC are offering to broker talks (and that the employers are willing to attend talks at the TUC but not at ACAS). This tells us that the TUC does not wish to be a real trade union centre (co-ordinating solidarity when workers are in dispute) but prefer to be a bargain basement alternative to ACAS.
Presumably Royal Mail will attend talks at the TUC (whilst refusing ACAS) because they think they can count on Brendan Barber to lean on Billy Hayes to offer further concessions in a way that the professional conciliators at ACAS would not do.
Maybe the civil service unions who organise the ACAS workforce should be complaining to the TUC about this blatant theft of their work?
All present at the Briefing EB agreed that our task is to support workers in struggle and to try to do what we can to help them achieve their objectives, not to “resolve their dispute”. It is a shame that the TUC appears not to recognise this!
The uses and abuses of UNISON Rule I
It is easy to make fun of those who overdo disciplinary action in order to root out heresy.
There is, however, no longer anything very amusing about the way in which my trade union, UNISON, is abusing internal disciplinary procedures (as set out in UNISON Rule I) to stifle dissenting voices.
At yesterday's Stop the War demonstration I was struck by spontaneous comments from more than one member of the Communist Party (with whom I have much in common) deploring the excesses of UNISON's internal regime.
Regular readers (Sid and Doris Union-Democrat) will be familiar with some of the specific examples about which I have blogged before.
The expulsion of Tony Staunton was such a grotesque over reaction to the allegations against him that it is impossible not to see the case as a deliberate intervention to prevent his standing against - and perhaps defeating - a leading member of our National Executive Council.
The disgraceful treatment of Yunus Bakhsh in the face of compelling evidence of far right influence over the case against him can also only be interpreted as a deliberate move to rid the Union of a persistent internal critic.
The widely publicised case against four UNISON activists over the production of a contested leaflet at UNISON Conference has now brought into the open - through evidence given in public by a paid official - the fact that senior paid officials have tried to organise action against people whom they perceive as "Trotskyists" in our union. Once again this is a case in which it appears that - quite contrary to UNISON's Rules - administrative means are being employed to seek to resolve political differences.
I have been reassured in person by senior officials of our Union that there is no politically motivated witch hunt. I have to say quite clearly that I do not believe these assurances. Further cases are emerging at present in which the instigation of action against certain activists is plainly politically motivated, and in which grotesquely disproportionate sanctions are being imposed.
It is not possible to express these concerns in a meaningful way within UNISON's democratic structures since - as a member of our National Executive - I am not permitted to ask verbal questions or to debate the reports which are received by the NEC about disciplinary action. All that I may do is to ask written questions and to receive written responses which are private and confidential.
This means that if I wish to draw to the attention of the UNISON members who have elected me to our NEC I have to publicise matters that come to my attention. I shall report here on some of the bizarre and unjustified cases now emerging into the public domain, and also upon evidence that those who are politically in favour can be treated far more leniently where found guilty of outright breaches of Rule.
These politically motivated disciplinary cases and their excessive and unjust outcomes variously breach the following Rules of our Union - A3, B1.2, B1.4, B1.7, B2.1, B2.2, B2.4, B2.5, B4.6 and D2.1. The Union is breaking our own Rules, as agreed by our Members in the merger ballot and subsequently amended by our Conference. This is unacceptable.
We have to stop UNISON's internal disciplinary procedures being used to breach the Union's Rules and bring the Union into disrepute in this way - we must stop aiming to be a parody of ourselves.
(All joking aside - we face serious challenges right now and need unity to pursue the progressive policies of our trade union against present and future attacks upon our jobs, our pensions and our conditions - as well as an unprecedented onslaught upon the services we work to provide. This unity is impossible whilst UNISON's General Secretary permits the abuse of our internal disciplinary regime against his critics).
Dave, you have stopped this in the past. Stop it now.
There is, however, no longer anything very amusing about the way in which my trade union, UNISON, is abusing internal disciplinary procedures (as set out in UNISON Rule I) to stifle dissenting voices.
At yesterday's Stop the War demonstration I was struck by spontaneous comments from more than one member of the Communist Party (with whom I have much in common) deploring the excesses of UNISON's internal regime.
Regular readers (Sid and Doris Union-Democrat) will be familiar with some of the specific examples about which I have blogged before.
The expulsion of Tony Staunton was such a grotesque over reaction to the allegations against him that it is impossible not to see the case as a deliberate intervention to prevent his standing against - and perhaps defeating - a leading member of our National Executive Council.
The disgraceful treatment of Yunus Bakhsh in the face of compelling evidence of far right influence over the case against him can also only be interpreted as a deliberate move to rid the Union of a persistent internal critic.
The widely publicised case against four UNISON activists over the production of a contested leaflet at UNISON Conference has now brought into the open - through evidence given in public by a paid official - the fact that senior paid officials have tried to organise action against people whom they perceive as "Trotskyists" in our union. Once again this is a case in which it appears that - quite contrary to UNISON's Rules - administrative means are being employed to seek to resolve political differences.
I have been reassured in person by senior officials of our Union that there is no politically motivated witch hunt. I have to say quite clearly that I do not believe these assurances. Further cases are emerging at present in which the instigation of action against certain activists is plainly politically motivated, and in which grotesquely disproportionate sanctions are being imposed.
It is not possible to express these concerns in a meaningful way within UNISON's democratic structures since - as a member of our National Executive - I am not permitted to ask verbal questions or to debate the reports which are received by the NEC about disciplinary action. All that I may do is to ask written questions and to receive written responses which are private and confidential.
This means that if I wish to draw to the attention of the UNISON members who have elected me to our NEC I have to publicise matters that come to my attention. I shall report here on some of the bizarre and unjustified cases now emerging into the public domain, and also upon evidence that those who are politically in favour can be treated far more leniently where found guilty of outright breaches of Rule.
These politically motivated disciplinary cases and their excessive and unjust outcomes variously breach the following Rules of our Union - A3, B1.2, B1.4, B1.7, B2.1, B2.2, B2.4, B2.5, B4.6 and D2.1. The Union is breaking our own Rules, as agreed by our Members in the merger ballot and subsequently amended by our Conference. This is unacceptable.
We have to stop UNISON's internal disciplinary procedures being used to breach the Union's Rules and bring the Union into disrepute in this way - we must stop aiming to be a parody of ourselves.
(All joking aside - we face serious challenges right now and need unity to pursue the progressive policies of our trade union against present and future attacks upon our jobs, our pensions and our conditions - as well as an unprecedented onslaught upon the services we work to provide. This unity is impossible whilst UNISON's General Secretary permits the abuse of our internal disciplinary regime against his critics).
Dave, you have stopped this in the past. Stop it now.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Torygraph questions
If you had to make up a name for a journalist on the Torygraph you could not do better than "Jasper Copping" author of a Freedom of Information act request to local authorities asking them about how much time off they give trade union officials in their employment.
The paid release of lay trade union representatives is a consequence of the statutory right to paid time off work to carry out trade union duties - which is essential to the functioning of a trade union in the workplace.
The Tories - and their media allies - are preparing now to weaken workplace trade unionism in order to weaken the defence we can mount as they attack our public services.
As I was saying we need to raise our membership density through a clear focus on the issues of concern to our members in order to defend ourselves against these attacks.
I am sure that a serious journalist would welcome further information and context and so publish his email address;
jasper.copping@telegraph.co.uk
The paid release of lay trade union representatives is a consequence of the statutory right to paid time off work to carry out trade union duties - which is essential to the functioning of a trade union in the workplace.
The Tories - and their media allies - are preparing now to weaken workplace trade unionism in order to weaken the defence we can mount as they attack our public services.
As I was saying we need to raise our membership density through a clear focus on the issues of concern to our members in order to defend ourselves against these attacks.
I am sure that a serious journalist would welcome further information and context and so publish his email address;
jasper.copping@telegraph.co.uk
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Getting ready for the fight of our lives
Whatever shade of reactionary opinion dominates the next Government we can anticipate that the attack upon the trade union movement which has already commenced will intensify before, during and after the General Election campaign.
As the CWU are forced towards national strike action by the calculated intransigence of a deliberately offensive management, UNISON members in London local government are already witness to attempts by Tory Councils to marginalise and hobble our trade unions.
As well as attacks upon jobs, services and conditions, the coming onslaught will see an intensification of attacks upon trade union activists. This is no coincidence.
Grassroots trade union activism will be the backbone of the resistance to the attacks which are now being made upon the interests of working people. The managers who make themselves (willing or otherwise) tools of these attacks will perceive trade union activists as obstacles to be avoided, isolated or removed.
Therefore we need to step up our support for one another. We need to share information between our branches (across Regions, Service Groups and between different unions) and we need to stand together - without question - in support of fellow activists.
We also need an immediate end to the blatantly political misuses of internal procedures - the luxury of internal squabbling is not something which our members can afford and the playground-icepick politics must cease. If it does not then we must show the same determination to defend activists from victimisation no matter who is doing the victimisation.
There is a gathering storm of acts of individual victimisation coming at activists from the employers and I shall aim to report on these here and encourage solidarity. There are also positive initiatives from the rank and file to strengthen and develop our ability to defend the interests of our members and I will report on those here too.
Class struggle is an old fashioned concept - but since it is now being waged against us we had better rediscover it ourselves.
As the CWU are forced towards national strike action by the calculated intransigence of a deliberately offensive management, UNISON members in London local government are already witness to attempts by Tory Councils to marginalise and hobble our trade unions.
As well as attacks upon jobs, services and conditions, the coming onslaught will see an intensification of attacks upon trade union activists. This is no coincidence.
Grassroots trade union activism will be the backbone of the resistance to the attacks which are now being made upon the interests of working people. The managers who make themselves (willing or otherwise) tools of these attacks will perceive trade union activists as obstacles to be avoided, isolated or removed.
Therefore we need to step up our support for one another. We need to share information between our branches (across Regions, Service Groups and between different unions) and we need to stand together - without question - in support of fellow activists.
We also need an immediate end to the blatantly political misuses of internal procedures - the luxury of internal squabbling is not something which our members can afford and the playground-icepick politics must cease. If it does not then we must show the same determination to defend activists from victimisation no matter who is doing the victimisation.
There is a gathering storm of acts of individual victimisation coming at activists from the employers and I shall aim to report on these here and encourage solidarity. There are also positive initiatives from the rank and file to strengthen and develop our ability to defend the interests of our members and I will report on those here too.
Class struggle is an old fashioned concept - but since it is now being waged against us we had better rediscover it ourselves.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Well done Croydon
I want to record here my thanks to the members of Croydon UNISON for the wonderful evening last night in memory of a much loved and much missed friend and fellow UNISON Branch Secretary - Malcolm Campbell.
Malcolm was a great role model for other lay activists in our Union and his memory is an inspiration we shall need to draw upon in the months and years ahead.
Malcolm was a great role model for other lay activists in our Union and his memory is an inspiration we shall need to draw upon in the months and years ahead.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Where will you be on October 24th?
Next Saturday October 24th is one of the most important antiwar demonstrations Stop the War (to which UNISON is affiliated) has ever organised.
It comes at the moment when the war in Afghanistan has lost all credibility but the governments on both sides of the Atlantic are sending more troops.
It comes at a time of widespread revulsion against the war across the country. Amongst others, many soldiers, ex soldiers and military families are contacting us to express their outrage at the terrible waste of life it is causing.
It comes at a time when the reasons given for the war have been exposed as lies. As violence spirals in Afghanistan who can now believe the war is making the world a safer place?
After the sham elections who can believe it is bringing democracy to Afghanistan?
Members of military families, including those of serving soldiers, are travelling from as far afield as Dundee and Exeter. They will be at the head of the demonstration, alongside Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, the soldier who is facing a court martial for refusing to go back to Afghanistan and Peter Brierley, the father who lost his son in Iraq and refused to shake Tony Blair's hand in St Paul's Cathedral a week ago
It comes at the moment when the war in Afghanistan has lost all credibility but the governments on both sides of the Atlantic are sending more troops.
It comes at a time of widespread revulsion against the war across the country. Amongst others, many soldiers, ex soldiers and military families are contacting us to express their outrage at the terrible waste of life it is causing.
It comes at a time when the reasons given for the war have been exposed as lies. As violence spirals in Afghanistan who can now believe the war is making the world a safer place?
After the sham elections who can believe it is bringing democracy to Afghanistan?
Members of military families, including those of serving soldiers, are travelling from as far afield as Dundee and Exeter. They will be at the head of the demonstration, alongside Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, the soldier who is facing a court martial for refusing to go back to Afghanistan and Peter Brierley, the father who lost his son in Iraq and refused to shake Tony Blair's hand in St Paul's Cathedral a week ago
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Release Brian!
I am looking forward to tomorrow's meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council.
(Regular readers Sid and Doris Shrink are already offering me therapy for these strange tastes).
At the Regional Council a motion has been ruled out of order.
I want to emphasise that I make no criticism here of that decision, for to question the wisdom of a Standing Orders Committee in our Union has become a matter which can cause all sorts of trouble.
(Even where there is not in fact a proper independent Standing Orders Committee for the body in question!)
So I shall just say this.
Brian Debus, praise of whom has been sufficient to see a motion not just ruled out of order but banned even from being printed or circulated, is a fine trade unionist whom I am proud to know.
I do not share his politics, but I respect his contribution to our movement - and I understand how hard it is, and how hard you have to be, to sustain activism in some of our branches. (You have to look on the bright side of life).
If I respected any of those who have decided to rule the motion praising Brian out of order half as much as I respect Brian I would mention it in the remainder of this blog post.
(Regular readers Sid and Doris Shrink are already offering me therapy for these strange tastes).
At the Regional Council a motion has been ruled out of order.
I want to emphasise that I make no criticism here of that decision, for to question the wisdom of a Standing Orders Committee in our Union has become a matter which can cause all sorts of trouble.
(Even where there is not in fact a proper independent Standing Orders Committee for the body in question!)
So I shall just say this.
Brian Debus, praise of whom has been sufficient to see a motion not just ruled out of order but banned even from being printed or circulated, is a fine trade unionist whom I am proud to know.
I do not share his politics, but I respect his contribution to our movement - and I understand how hard it is, and how hard you have to be, to sustain activism in some of our branches. (You have to look on the bright side of life).
If I respected any of those who have decided to rule the motion praising Brian out of order half as much as I respect Brian I would mention it in the remainder of this blog post.
Keeping other peoples promises for them?
I remember when I heard about the death of John Smith (at the time Leader of the Opposition and likely future Labour Prime Minister).
I was sat with a Union member waiting - and preparing - for her appeal against dismissal on grounds of redundancy and she would not talk to me about the matter in hand, but only about how sad she was to hear the news.
I have no idea whether the party under Smith would have betrayed us as much as it did under Blair, but I remember that moment whenever dealing with the employment rights of workers with less than one year's continuous service (as I was today).
Before 1997 our Labour Party said that we would bring in employment rights from day one - but we never did. When setting out an agenda for Labour in its second term our General Secretary reiterated this demand. Two terms on and we have still failed to honour this commitment.
So as a local union activist I try particularly hard to resist injustices to those workers with less than one year's continuous service, because the Party of which I am still a member has broken our promise to them and left them without the legal rights of other workers.
We have to remember that we are not here as trade unionists just to get people their legal rights.
We are here to get our members what is right for them.
I was sat with a Union member waiting - and preparing - for her appeal against dismissal on grounds of redundancy and she would not talk to me about the matter in hand, but only about how sad she was to hear the news.
I have no idea whether the party under Smith would have betrayed us as much as it did under Blair, but I remember that moment whenever dealing with the employment rights of workers with less than one year's continuous service (as I was today).
Before 1997 our Labour Party said that we would bring in employment rights from day one - but we never did. When setting out an agenda for Labour in its second term our General Secretary reiterated this demand. Two terms on and we have still failed to honour this commitment.
So as a local union activist I try particularly hard to resist injustices to those workers with less than one year's continuous service, because the Party of which I am still a member has broken our promise to them and left them without the legal rights of other workers.
We have to remember that we are not here as trade unionists just to get people their legal rights.
We are here to get our members what is right for them.
Recruit Recruit Recruit!
There is enormous scope to recruit new members to strengthen our trade union, the better to defend workers' interests in the face of coming struggles.
Reliable figures seen by your blogger indicate for the directly employed local government workforce in Greater London an overall trade union density figure of 45%.
That means that the majority of directly employed local government employees in our capital city - who benefit from the nationally agreed conditions of service (such as the sick pay scheme) and have access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (all of these things won by decades of trade union struggle) are not members of any trade union.
Whilst it may be some consolation that across Inner London a narrow majority are trade union members, in Outer London the proportion is less than two in five.
We know what recruits members - our Union being visible and effective in defending the interests of our members and potential members. Therefore we need to mobilise our branches (using the opportunity of the Million Voices campaign and tool of the Peoples Charter) in high profile campaigns to defend and promote public services.
We need to see more of UNISON members taking action, whether that is a public protest at a Council meeting or a ballot for action to defend jobs - and we need to articulate a coherent alternative to the discourse of cuts and privatisation which is now dominant.
As so often, Barnet show the way - with the sound idea of a local manifesto for public services. UNISON cannot afford to move at the speed of our slowest elements. We need to energise our Union.
Reliable figures seen by your blogger indicate for the directly employed local government workforce in Greater London an overall trade union density figure of 45%.
That means that the majority of directly employed local government employees in our capital city - who benefit from the nationally agreed conditions of service (such as the sick pay scheme) and have access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (all of these things won by decades of trade union struggle) are not members of any trade union.
Whilst it may be some consolation that across Inner London a narrow majority are trade union members, in Outer London the proportion is less than two in five.
We know what recruits members - our Union being visible and effective in defending the interests of our members and potential members. Therefore we need to mobilise our branches (using the opportunity of the Million Voices campaign and tool of the Peoples Charter) in high profile campaigns to defend and promote public services.
We need to see more of UNISON members taking action, whether that is a public protest at a Council meeting or a ballot for action to defend jobs - and we need to articulate a coherent alternative to the discourse of cuts and privatisation which is now dominant.
As so often, Barnet show the way - with the sound idea of a local manifesto for public services. UNISON cannot afford to move at the speed of our slowest elements. We need to energise our Union.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Support Dave Osler and freedom of expression on the internet
If you have a moment online go and express your support for ace leftwing blogger Dave Osler who faces legal action for allegedly defaming someone about whom I shall express no opinion other than to tell this story;
Many years ago a local politician now enjoying well-deserved obscurity made some completely unfounded allegations against me in public. I was younger then and these things bothered me so I wrote to the Union Legal Department for advice on "protecting my reputation."
In due course I was referred to a solicitor who explained to me that libel law was all about reputation and that - as a union official working for what was then widely seen as a "Loony Left" local authority I did not have a reputation worth protecting.
Subsequent debates within the Union lead me to suppose that others have drawn the same conclusion from time to time - but I am happy with the idea that if someone has a go at me I should have a go back and not involve the legal system. I am sure that there is a place for a law about defamation, but it should not be there to be used to stifle political comment and debate.
In supporting Dave Osler against this unjustified attack we have to support others under attack alongside him - whatever we may think of their online contribution.
Many years ago a local politician now enjoying well-deserved obscurity made some completely unfounded allegations against me in public. I was younger then and these things bothered me so I wrote to the Union Legal Department for advice on "protecting my reputation."
In due course I was referred to a solicitor who explained to me that libel law was all about reputation and that - as a union official working for what was then widely seen as a "Loony Left" local authority I did not have a reputation worth protecting.
Subsequent debates within the Union lead me to suppose that others have drawn the same conclusion from time to time - but I am happy with the idea that if someone has a go at me I should have a go back and not involve the legal system. I am sure that there is a place for a law about defamation, but it should not be there to be used to stifle political comment and debate.
In supporting Dave Osler against this unjustified attack we have to support others under attack alongside him - whatever we may think of their online contribution.
Consultants belong in hospitals - not local government.
Full marks to UNISON East Midlands Region for exposing the cost of agency workers and consultants to local authorities in their area.
As I was saying the cost of consultants in local government is a real example of waste.
We do not need to pay people £500 a day and more to tell us things which are either self-evident or stupid. Far from limiting this waste though, the cuts agenda which will be pursued by the Tories (or by New Labour should a miracle happen at the next election) will be a boon to the consultants as they are called upon to tell us (at great expense) how to make savings.
Consultants belong in hospitals - not in local government...
As I was saying the cost of consultants in local government is a real example of waste.
We do not need to pay people £500 a day and more to tell us things which are either self-evident or stupid. Far from limiting this waste though, the cuts agenda which will be pursued by the Tories (or by New Labour should a miracle happen at the next election) will be a boon to the consultants as they are called upon to tell us (at great expense) how to make savings.
Consultants belong in hospitals - not in local government...
Political Fund Review - act now
UNISON branches should have received a consultation document on the review of the effectiveness of our political fund.
The deadline for submissions in response to the document is Friday 13 November 2009 - so for most branches that will mean that there is just one Branch Committee before that deadline.
Put that date in your diary now - and someone tell me why the front cover of the document shows chess pieces...
Update on Monday evening - what was that about the sincerest form of flattery?
The deadline for submissions in response to the document is Friday 13 November 2009 - so for most branches that will mean that there is just one Branch Committee before that deadline.
Put that date in your diary now - and someone tell me why the front cover of the document shows chess pieces...
Update on Monday evening - what was that about the sincerest form of flattery?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
A useful niche site?
Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Niche-Blogger) will know that I am almost painfully modest, so it goes against the grain to draw attention to kind words in the Morning Star.
In an overview of the political left in the “blogosphere” this weekend leading lefty blogger Jim Jepps identifies this blog as an example of useful “niche sites that connect with fewer people but in a more targeted way” (than blogs which get more hits). As he says “thousands of people coming to your site to be annoyed at you isn't as good as a few dozen people in your local area - or union or campaign - using your blog as a resource.”
I started blogging in order to report on my work as a member of the UNISON National Executive Council and as a UNISON activist generally. Given the role of leftwing members of the Executive at Conference it is as well to have another avenue to express opinions...
I particularly like being referred to as “UNISON’s Jon Rogers” in the Morning Star but I suppose that should serve as a reminder to emphasise once more that this is a personal blog and that UNISON are not responsible for its contents!
In an overview of the political left in the “blogosphere” this weekend leading lefty blogger Jim Jepps identifies this blog as an example of useful “niche sites that connect with fewer people but in a more targeted way” (than blogs which get more hits). As he says “thousands of people coming to your site to be annoyed at you isn't as good as a few dozen people in your local area - or union or campaign - using your blog as a resource.”
I started blogging in order to report on my work as a member of the UNISON National Executive Council and as a UNISON activist generally. Given the role of leftwing members of the Executive at Conference it is as well to have another avenue to express opinions...
I particularly like being referred to as “UNISON’s Jon Rogers” in the Morning Star but I suppose that should serve as a reminder to emphasise once more that this is a personal blog and that UNISON are not responsible for its contents!
Support London Met workers
This is the latest information I have received about the campaign against redundancies at London Metropolitan University;
As you know, London Met UCU and London Met Unison have been conducting a major campaign to oppose our management's insistence on the loss of 550 FTE posts - which may eventually result in up to 700 job losses (1/4 of our entire workforce). Both unions won overwhelming endorsement for industrial action in industrial action ballots, and UCU took an initial day's strike action in May, followed by joint strike action with Unison in July. UCU also initiated ‘greylisting’ against the university on September 1st and this is already having a major impact (please see http://www.lmuucu.devisland.net/lmuucu-greylist-010909.html for further details)
However, despite forcing management to slowdown their redundancy plans and to postpone attempts to outsource vital services such as IT, they still appear hell bent on mass compulsory redundancies. They are also now planning on closing the last remaining on-campus student nursery – this will in itself specifically, and negatively, impact on the lives of very many women returners to education.
Both unions have therefore voted to escalate our industrial action campaign and this will commence with a joint UCU/Unison university-wide two day strike on Thursday and Friday (October 15th/16th) of this week.
JOINT UCU/UNISON STRIKE – THURSDAY/FRIDAY 15TH/16TH OCTOBER
Our picket lines will commence at 8am at each of our main campus buildings in Holloway Road, Moorgate, Aldgate East, and Whitechapel (see http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com/2009/10/support-our-strike-join-pickets-thurs.html for details). We are also planning on holding a mass rally during the strike (details to follow – please check our website for the latest information).
Please make every effort to join us in the morning on our picket lines and to send delegations (and banners) from your branches to our rally in the afternoon. Further updates will be posted on our blog: http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com and website http://www.lmuucu.devisland.net. You can also email your messages of support to: unisonlondonmet@googlemail.com and lmuucu@devisland.net
As you know, London Met UCU and London Met Unison have been conducting a major campaign to oppose our management's insistence on the loss of 550 FTE posts - which may eventually result in up to 700 job losses (1/4 of our entire workforce). Both unions won overwhelming endorsement for industrial action in industrial action ballots, and UCU took an initial day's strike action in May, followed by joint strike action with Unison in July. UCU also initiated ‘greylisting’ against the university on September 1st and this is already having a major impact (please see http://www.lmuucu.devisland.net/lmuucu-greylist-010909.html for further details)
However, despite forcing management to slowdown their redundancy plans and to postpone attempts to outsource vital services such as IT, they still appear hell bent on mass compulsory redundancies. They are also now planning on closing the last remaining on-campus student nursery – this will in itself specifically, and negatively, impact on the lives of very many women returners to education.
Both unions have therefore voted to escalate our industrial action campaign and this will commence with a joint UCU/Unison university-wide two day strike on Thursday and Friday (October 15th/16th) of this week.
JOINT UCU/UNISON STRIKE – THURSDAY/FRIDAY 15TH/16TH OCTOBER
Our picket lines will commence at 8am at each of our main campus buildings in Holloway Road, Moorgate, Aldgate East, and Whitechapel (see http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com/2009/10/support-our-strike-join-pickets-thurs.html for details). We are also planning on holding a mass rally during the strike (details to follow – please check our website for the latest information).
Please make every effort to join us in the morning on our picket lines and to send delegations (and banners) from your branches to our rally in the afternoon. Further updates will be posted on our blog: http://savelondonmetuni.blogspot.com and website http://www.lmuucu.devisland.net. You can also email your messages of support to: unisonlondonmet@googlemail.com and lmuucu@devisland.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)