Bringing it all together

It's a shame that prior commitments prevented me attending yesterday's lobby of the Local Government Association in opposition to the politically motivated Tory pay freeze for local Council workers.

At last week's meeting of the Regional Local Government Committee there was a useful discussion with Heather Wakefield about how to mobilise members against the many attacks we face whilst acknowledging that we are not sitting on a powder keg of militancy right at the moment.

My twopence worth is that I think we need to learn from the approach taken by PCS and see ourselves as having a national dispute (and related local disputes) about pay, jobs and - soon I fear - pensions. The various attacks upon our living standards, conditions and job security have a single source and need a coordinated response.

Most of all we have to persistently deny the reactionary consensus that says that public spending cuts are inevitable. Just as the pay freeze is a deliberate political choice, so will be the cuts imposed in June's Emergency Budget. There is an alternative.

Ave atque vale

My job share partner as UNISON Branch Secretary in Lambeth, Nick Venedi, is leaving Lambeth and is off to face new challenges. It's been fun to work with Nick over the best part of twenty years and he will be sorely missed.

It is however to his credit that several members of the team who will continue to lead the branch were encouraged into activity by Nick over the years. I suppose that I ought to count myself in that company since twice over the years, when I had stood down as Branch Secretary, it was Nick who prevailed upon me to return to office.

Nick is justly proud of his key role in bringing our Housing Benefit service back in house in 2001 after the disaster of privatisation to Capita - at the same time he also worked hard to shift the Labour Group in Lambeth away from the excesses of New Labour.

Whereas in 1998 the Labour manifesto in Lambeth attacked Council staff, by 2010, for the second successive local election there will be a workforce manifesto agreed between the Labour Group and affiliated trade unions.

We will I am sure continue to build on the work we have done in the past, and when we do we will remember Nick's contribution.

Good luck comrade!

Islington Labour - who say's there's no such thing as a free lunch?

I have just had the honour of speaking at the launch of Islington's workforce manifesto - the agreement between the Council trade unions and the Labour Group who should - all being well - be running the Council after May 6th.



For the attention of regular reader - and commentator - S Blogger, I hasten to add that I spoke, and am blogging, in my own time following a busy day sorting out casework in my Unison Branch Office (in anticipation of assuming sole responsibility for the first time in four years later this week).



Islington's Labour-Union agreement follows their experience of having been one of two London boroughs to have such agreements four years ago. It includes support for direct provision of public services and for comprehensive education, to both of which I drew attention in my brief contribution.



Support for the comprehensive ideal matters very much to me, both as a product of an excellent comprehensive education myself and as a child of a Grammar School girl who saw her siblings sent to Secondary Moderns.



Islington Labour also deserve full credit for driving through - even from opposition - free school meals for primary schoolchildren.



As Paul Kenny said in his contribution to the excellent meeting, such a commitment in Labour's national manifesto would attract much support in its appeal to the interests of our class.



Regular readers will know that I hold no brief for this Government, nor for their claque of supporters, dependents and hangers on in the wider labour and trade union movement.



Nevertheless we need a Labour, rather than a Tory, Government and Islington - like Lambeth - needs a Labour rather than a Lib Dem Council.



Good luck to the Islington comrades (and special apologies to Gary Heather, whose contribution I had to miss to get to Lambeth Trades Council (late...)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Total Place or safe place?

I have missed blogging properly this morning working on a presentation on Total Place for my local Trades Council.



Six months ago our Local Strategic Partnership, without waiting for the reports from the Total Place pilots, brainstormed how to save 20% from public spending in the borough.



The conclusions that they arrived at were consistent, they later concluded, with the Total Place initiative, for which such grand claims have been made on such slender foundations.



Since our LSP also saw the need for a "safe place" to develop cuts proposals (safe perhaps at this stage from our prying eyes) I hope Trades Council delegates will agree that we need to organise to scrutinise, engage with, respond to and - when necessary - oppose cuts proposals as they emerge, whether from a safe place or Total Place.



The lack of helpful guidance on the TUC website is not acceptable!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Milne Voices for public services

Seumas Milne in today's Grauniad makes the compelling case for reflationary public investment which ought to be (but isn't) being made from the Labour front bench (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/seot75NRN92v5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=361993&tid=120787&cat=Search).



He is right to foresee a period of social and political conflict as the custodians of our capitalist economy (of whichever political colour) take the axe to public services. Unison's "Million Voices" campaign (http://www.unison.org.uk/million/) has the potential to mobilise mass opposition to spending cuts - indeed Unison will be at the epicentre of the coming turmoil.



Our employers are already anticipating the real budget - the one which will come after the election. In the absence of a party of the centre-left articulating even a social democratic (let alone socialist) alternative to the devastation of our services, Unison must continue to point out that there is another way.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with PCS

Today's budget day strike action by PCS members seeking to defend their redundancy rights shows skillful timing (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/cscs/cscs-updates-and-briefings/blank-page-1.cfm).



The deliberate assault upon public servants by a (notionally) Labour Government weeks from a General Election is less well timed.



As civil servants gather on the streets of London there are politicians at Westminster supporting them (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/solidarity-with-pcs-no-job-cuts-on-the-cheap/). In particular, former Unison official Katy Clark has tabled the motion in support of PCS.



Good luck comrades!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Hardly a vote of confidence

I had to miss the fun and games at today's meeting of the Unison Greater London Regional Committee.



In those parts of the blogosphere written by or on behalf of paid officials of our trade union I understand that there is much joy at the inconsequential decision of that body to nominate a Mr Prentis as General Secretary.



It is the form of this decision (rather than its substance) that tells you all you need to know about the difference between the Regional lay leadership now and that five years ago.



Never before has the Regional Committee arrogated to itself the right to nominate a candidate for General Secretary. When we had a socialist majority we would never have shown such disrespect for our members. We thought the Regional Council should take that decision (and it is noteworthy that those seeking to build their reputation on having "tamed" the Region did not dare to put this question before the Regional Council).



Now though things are desperate. Though the Prentis camp can stack up nominations from Regions and Service Groups the crucial branch nominations are melting away.



Last time our General Secretary had 512 branch nominations. This time Prentis supporters argued for the tight timetable which we are working with precisely on the basis that it would facilitate branches to make nominations at our AGMs.



Anything less than 400 nominations from branches will - therefore, in the light of this justification for the timetable - be a shocking indictment of the unsatisfactory record of our Union leadership over the past five years.



If our General Secretary, as an incumbent, can command the active support - by way of nomination - of less than one third of Unison's branches then he is plainly hobbled.



If it quacks like a duck



And it limps like a duck...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Prioritise Rule Amendment 33

Some people use their annual leave to spend time on the beach, others indulge (or so I understand) in sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

Still others of us appear as witnesses in internal Unison disciplinary hearings.

As a result of this peculiar predilection on my part I have an unusual - some say unhealthy - interest in debates on Rule Amendments at Unison National Delegate Conference.

In this context (and as regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger will recollect my having promised to do) I have been looking at the Rule Amendments submitted to this year's Conference (and admitted to the agenda by the Standing Orders Committee).

I am immediately and immodestly struck by Rule Amendment 33 which seeks to introduce the issuing of disciplinary warnings into the Union's disciplinary procedure. Since it is now seven years since the Lambeth Branch last mobilised the simple majority necessary to amend Schedule D to the Rule Book I am hopeful that this sensible proposal will command support. It is obvious to me that such a power could often usefully be employed.

If you are reading this as a Unison activist expecting to be consulted about the prioritisation process then I commend to you Rule Amendment 33, as well as Rule Amendments 12,13 and 14 - which seek to impose a sensible and proportionate limit of 24 months on bans from holding office imposed under Rule I - and Rule Amendment 4 which this year gets right what last year was got wrong by our National Executive Council in seeking to exclude from membership of our Union members of those far right political parties who aspire to our destruction.

All Regions are asked to prioritise Rule Amendments as well as motions - and should consult branches as part of this process. Do not ignore the prioritisation of Rule Amendments - last year we lost some non controversial amendments because they were not prioritised above foolhardy NEC amendments presented in defiance of good advice from those with a sound sense of the will of Conference.

This year those who write NEC Conference submissions (a group by no means coterminous with the NEC!), have not repeated the errors of last year (assiduous readers of Conference agendas will note the absence of attempts - made last year - to remove from elected delegates to Service Group Conferences authority over negotiations on pay and conditions).

Therefore we must aim to prioritise for debate motions which can make a positive difference and - when it comes to Amendments to Rule - an amendment to Schedule (requiring as it does a simple rather than two thirds majority) is clearly attractive.

So - prioritise Rule Amendment 33!

Please

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The End of New Labour?

At last night's meeting of my employer's "Cabinet" (which I am enough of a dinosaur still to think of as the Policy and Resources Committee minus the opposition) Councillors were careful to declare when they had an interest in any matter under discussion. The point of which is that we should be aware of any personal interests which might influence the judgement or conduct of elected Members.



Because I was there (to support a colleague addressing the meeting about Unison's plans to avert privatisation of some of our members' jobs) I wasn't watching telly and missed Dispatches (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/#synopsis) which showed how some former Cabinet Ministers were allegedly less punctilious than our local politicians when it came to seeking personal advantage from public office.



The sordid end of the dregs of the Blair faction in Parliament inevitably raises a smile - but this will only be the "end of New Labour" which Colin Burgon welcomed yesterday if we can replace it with something else.



There's no point in simply slotting trade unionists into seats vacated by those now leaving to spend more time with their money.



Unison's recent experiences (http://news.scotsman.com/breaking-news/Livingston-MP-Jim-Devine-charged.6046759.jp) show that that can be less than successful (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8582248.stm).



To rescue the Labour Party - and defend our public services and the interests of working people - requires a strategic alliance between the trade unions and the Parliamentary and constituency left to shift the Party in the direction of the working class.



Unison's leadership - which could and should be at the centre of this alliance - will remain instead an obstacle to political progress as long as it gives such energetic priority to attacks upon leftwing activists in our own ranks.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Oi! What about the (social) workers?

It was good to see an ad in today's Metro from UNISON defending social workers engaged in child protection work.

The nearest I ever want to get to child protection is stopping my two (wonderful) children from squabbling!

Just like most of you reading this blog I would not want to be a social worker with responsibilities for child protection and (as the proud son and nephew of social workers) I am lost in admiration for those who will take that responsibility on.

In twenty years and more of trade union activity I have too often seen scapegoating of social workers. I have also seen that our trade union is the only defence a social worker has.

The answer is not - as Madeline Bunting rightly points out in today's Grauniad - more form filling and question answering.

The answer is that we should value people prepared to do an awful job in difficult circumstances - and that we need to rebuild the trade union organisation that once made social workers a force to be reckoned with in the workplace!

Defend the English - cherish dissent

With apologies to regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger for wandering into an uncharacteristically personal post, I have just spent my Christmas book tokens.

I have bought John Keane's biography of Tom Paine - which I very much hope I shall enjoy. In the foreword he wrote for last year's reissue of the book Keane rightly observes that "condescension of the dead is dangerous."

This echoes to me what EP Thompson had to say in introducing "The Making of the English Working Class" (a book which has influenced my life as much as any other). Thompson set himself a mission (in which he succeeded) to rescue his subjects from "the enormous condescension of posterity."

It was from Thompson that I learnt of the London Corresponding Society and that our labour movement has its origins in the courage and determination of those with neither wealth or power who were prepared to speak up.

All that we have of value in our lives we owe to the struggles of those before us, some of whom (Tom Paine, William Morris, Sylvia Pankhurst) are remembered but most of whom are as anonymous as we shall be a century hence.

This is the England which needs to be defended. These are the English heroes whom we should venerate. Wat Tyler, the Diggers, the Chartists and the Match Girls, the Grunwick strikers and the Hillingdon hospital strikers represent the England in which I live.

We English can also be proud that we beheaded a King more than three centuries ago (even if we've been daft enough to put up with monarchy since the restoration!)

And yet islamophobic racist vermin can wave the flag of St George and claim to speak for my country with their incoherent intolerance. The "English Defence League" are as English as the Freikorps and those who would drive them back into the sewer deserve our full support.

I am also angry at those who want to cleanse our labour movement of dissent. All that is best in our movement is born of the courage of those who will speak truth to power. Those who prioritise maintenance of a facade of unity above tolerance and debate weaken us.

It is a sad truth that some of the dissenting voices whom we must defend subject themselves freely to the disciplines of "democratic centralism" (and an irony that those in our official structures who lead the charge against them stand in the same - bankrupt - Leninist tradition).

Nevertheless it is the duty of trade unionists to defend dangerous radicals, to speak up for those who speak out and to put ourselves between those who are victimised and castigated and those who attack them.

I have seen the Crown Jewels and they are very pretty, but the precious jewels of the English are the traditions of radicalism, tolerance and dissent with which we can build a better stronger labour movement and a better, fairer England.

Rant over.

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with BA strikers

The media are laying into fellow trade unionists and its important to be clear that we should be on the side of the workers.



Unite members working at BA have started a three-day strike against the employer, after BA failed to table acceptable proposals on the issues of job cuts and crews' fears that management is driving down standards at the airline.





There will also be a demo at Heathrow this morning (Saturday 20th March) at 10:30am in solidarity with the strikers.



Good luck and best wishes to all who can make it.



This is from a statement from the Labour Representation Committee;

(http://l-r-c.org.uk/ge2010candidates/john-mcdonnell/)

John McDonnell MP , LRC Chair, said:





"This dispute is a prime example of the current industrial relations climate, with the employer not only seeking to win but to break the union too.





"This is an indication of the coming disputes, and requires maximum solidarity. We need to learn the lessons and co-ordinate industrial action across the economy if we are to ensure ordinary people do not pay for this crisis."



Hear hear!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unison Manchester Local Government Branch "the forces of right wing ideology and reaction are resurgent"

I am just reading the Preliminary Agenda for Unison National Delegate Conference.



I will blog in more detail later - particularly to comment (with all due deference and civility) on some of the decisions of our Standing Orders Committee.



For now though I am moved to comment by Motion 102 from the Manchester branch on Europe.



Manchester advise us that "the forces of right wing ideology and reaction are resurgent."



So now we know.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Union-bashing blues

Today's Morning Star reports on some vintage union bashing from the refurbished Thatcherites running the Tory party (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/88058).



Eric Pickles says a Tory Government would restrict party funding from trade unions. (In Eric those who would break the link between trade unions and Labour have a steadfast, if presumably unwelcome, ally).



The Tories want to restrict trade union funding of political parties not merely for narrow party advantage.



For them the collective expression of the political will of the working class through our trade unions is an affront.



Workers should know our (work)place and leave governing and ruling to those who were born to it.



As John McDonnell rightly points out, the Tories are set to pose an almost existential threat to our movement.



We need a fighting leadership and an organised membership to face this challenge.



Complacent praise of the status quo in our union borders on the criminal.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support striking UNISON members at Notting Hill Housing Trust

UNISON members of our Housing Associations Branch have been forced to take action against an increasingly hostile employer at Notting Hill Housing Trust.

UNISON members are taking strike action today in opposition to imposed cuts to terms and conditions, including an end to paid carers’ leave and flexitime. These changes will, by the employers’ own admission, have greatest impact on female staff with caring responsibilities.

Relocation allowances and salary protection have also been cut in advance of likely changes to job roles and office relocation (echoes of the Government's attack on civil servants redundancy terms ahead of making redundancies!) Further information - and details of how you can protest to the employer in support of the striking workers - is
Solidarity and best wishes to the Notting Hill strikers!

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Branch Secretary

As regular readers, Sid and Doris Blogger, will know this is a niche blog!



This then is a niche post on a niche blog.



Only other Unison Branch Secretaries will appreciate the enormous relief I feel having submitted the annual branch financial returns on time.



I hope that those of you in that category are feeling similar relief - the deadline is Monday!





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

No explanation for attack on union democracy

As one of the Unison NEC members who (on the specific advice of a senior national official) takes seriously my responsibility to scrutinise the actions of union officials, I have been asking questions about the actions last Friday of Unison staff in Bromley and Greenwich.

Although the pesky questions of an NEC member are not worthy of response, our Regional Secretary has now written to all branches in London to explain that the Bromley, Greenwich and Tenant Services Authority branches have been taken under Regional supervision.

We are informed that the decision was taken under rule D2.1 and Rule G8.3.3. The first of these is just the general power of the NEC to take any action (subject to the Rules and Conference policy) and - since actions such as the cancellation of a branch Annual General Meeting breach the Rules - it is the latter Rule which really matters.

Rule G8.3.3 authorises a visit to a branch by an officer where (in the opinion of the General or Regional Secretary) it appears that a branch is not functioning effectively. It is in fact this Rule under which "Regional supervision" takes place.

I will blog in more detail about the uses and abuses of this Rule, but wish now to draw attention to a serious dilemma for Unison.

Up until last week, these three branches were not under Regional supervision. Therefore, up until last week, neither the General nor Regional Secretary had formed the view that any of these branches were "not functioning effectively" - but now they have formed that view.

What can have changed?

Well, up until last week each of the three branches had a Branch Secretary, elected according to rule, who faced discipline by the Union. Last week all three Branch Secretaries were banned from holding office.

So, whilst these branches were the responsibility of elected officers facing disciplinary action there was no problem and no need for Regional supervision, but - as soon as disciplinary action took effect and the officers who had been found to have breached our Rules were out of the way - then, and only then the branches were suddenly deemed not to be functioning effectively and to require Regional supervision.

If these branches did not require supervision two weeks ago they most certainly do not now.

This is all quite as nonsensical as it seems.

I think a certain arrogance from those who exercise power is to be expected (if never welcomed) but that the mixture of such arrogance with such foolishness leaves our Union looking really really daft (for further information on "really really daft" in relation to this and other issues see http://www.workers.org.uk/).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Dave Ja Vu?

Yesterday I received an email from the campaign to elect Dave Prentis, considered by some to be front runner in the current Unison General Secretary election.



Happily, as a Rule Book anorak, I did not follow the advice in that email to encourage members (using Unison resources) to visit that candidate's campaign website or join his Facebook group. To have done so would have breached the election regulations and therefore Unison Rules.



I was however struck by the argument that was put forward in support of Dave;



" In the difficult times ahead – whatever Government is elected - UNISON's General Secretary will have to continue to be an effective and respected voice for our 1.4 million members. Our unity in choosing our General Secretary sends an important message to politicians and employers who will try to paint us as weak and divided. The more we unite to support Dave, the better every member can be supported."



This then is an argument for unity at all costs, the unity of the lowest common denominator, the unity perhaps of a Soviet election?



That sense of deja vu...



The strength of our movement comes from our democracy in practice as well as our unity in action. To suggest that support for another candidate somehow fosters "disunity" and would - by clear implication - weaken our ability to protect our members is an attack on the very democracy to which Dave Prentis pledged his undying commitment at the Special NEC in January.



That was the same meeting at which key Prentis supporters argued for the current election timetable on the basis that branches could hold hustings to determine their nominations at AGMs.



How many of the branches who have chosen to nominate the incumbent did so following a hustings? None?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unity in a cold climate

It's freezing in London local government - and I don't mean because the heating's broken.



With just four London boroughs proposing increases in Council Tax, and five proposing reductions, the majority have opted for a straightforward freeze - bringing us cuts in jobs and services even ahead of the much anticipated post-election butchery of public services.



This is not, however, simply an issue for local government workers. London Councils are lobbying for control over health service funding (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/02/01/113685/London-Councils-wants-boroughs-to-control-health-funds.htm). In the current climate they are not doing this simply to grab power and influence.



Following the Government's "Total Place" agenda, our employers have realised that a good way to make cuts in public services will be to bring together the administration of public services from across different parts of the public sector. They want to "eliminate overlap" - which sounds lovely unless you're the person they're sacking to achieve it!



All of this may be based upon calculations of potential savings which have little basis in evidence but the enthusiasm of our employers is clear (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/25/113639/london-councils-urges-agency-integration-to-cut-costs.htm).



The challenge to Unison is equally clear - particularly in London. Either we break down the barriers between our service groups now to organise the defence of our members or the employers will do it for us and leave us to pick up the pieces.



It's freezing right across London's public services - and unity is the response our members deserve and to which they are entitled.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

200,000 civil servants can't be wrong

Congratulations to PCS members striking today - and tomorrow - in defence of their redundancy scheme and contractual rights (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/431B8B52-853B-40BE-8A089020BF1E31B2).



As an avid Clash fan I was unable honestly to sing along to Bankrobber without changing the words to "My Daddy was a civil servant" (which didn't scan quite so well). Because he was.



Whilst that won't have been true for all of us it is certainly true that all public servants are brothers and sisters even if not parents and children.



There are those who would divide us - setting local government against central government, or health workers against Council workers - just as the media seek to set private sector against public sector. These people are our enemies.



A victory for the striking civil servants will be a victory for us all.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Lambeth Branch on good form :)

It is great to link to some good news from my own UNISON branch in Lambeth!

Thanks to support from UNISON's General Political Fund, approved by the Regional Finance Team in Greater London, our branch has been able to employ a consultant (that's a good consultant who believes in public services!) to help us develop credible proposals for a direct labour organisation (to be managed via a tenant led board with worker and Councillor representation) to deliver services to tenants in the borough.

Through united work between activists in the branch, the cooperation of our Regional Organiser, and a productive working relationship with Labour Councillors, we are showing what is possible for those of us in local government branches fortunate enough to have employers who are not hostile. The effective unity of all branch activists is of course also critical to this - as is the assistance of the Region.

I'm proud to come from a UNISON branch which can function so effectively - and whether or not we achieve the objective which we have set ourselves I know that in Lambeth we are giving effect to the intentions of UNISON's Million Voices campaign as well as anyone in the UK.

Report to London Unison branches on democracy in our Union

What follows is the text of a report which I have sent out today as a UNISON NEC member, concerning deeply troubling developments in UNISON's Greater London Region on Friday 5 March.
 
Early yesterday morning UNISON officials turned up at the offices of the Bromley, Greenwich and the Tenant Services Authority branches having given no notice. I understand that attempts have been made to seize control of computer hard drives and other resources, including documents on on-going personal cases.
 
This action follows immediately upon the conclusion of the disciplinary action against the Branch Secretaries of those branches, Glenn Kelly, Onay Kasab and Suzanne Muna, who have now been banned from holding office within UNISON for periods ranging from two years.
 
There are of course exceptional circumstances in which the Union does need to move in and run branches, the Rule Book deals with these thankfully very rare cases and the National Executive Council has a system of reporting where branches are placed under what is known as "Regional supervision." This procedure now appears to be being applied to these branches.
 
I also understand that our members in the Hackney branch, where Branch Chair, Brian Debus, has been banned from holding office, have been told that an election for a new Chair will be organised at Regional level. The basis on which this might be done is unclear to me and I am awaiting further information.
 
Although I and other members of the National Executive Council representing Greater London have been given notice of such action in the past, I had not notice of this action and my requests yesterday for an explanation from the Regional Secretary and the Chair of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee have thus far gone unanswered.
 
I am therefore unable to confirm that there are good grounds for the interventions in these branches. Indeed all the indications are that the action which is being taken breaches our Rule Book, undermines lay democracy and branch autonomy and threatens to waste scarce UNISON resources at a time when our members in local government, health and higher and further education all face the threat of unprecedented cuts in jobs in Greater London.
 
The Branch Secretaries who have been banned from holding office have been through the Union's disciplinary process and now know the outcome of that process. It would not be appropriate for me, as an NEC member, to comment upon the outcome of the disciplinary process in a communication of this nature and I do not do so.
 
However, the action taken yesterday against three branches is a completely different matter, unrelated to the allegations which have now been dealt with, and gives rise to serious concern that officials of our Union are breaking UNISON Rules.
 
It is difficult to conceive of any valid justification for this action being taken now, when those deemed to have breached our Union Rules are no longer holding office.
 
UNISON members in these three branches have the same rights as members in all our branches, including the right to elect their own branch officers and determine the policies of their branch within Union Rules. For UNISON officials to cancel Branch Annual General Meetings (as I understand has happened in Bromley) and to cooperate with the employer to cancel agreed trade union facility time and send lay activists back to work (as I understand has happened in Greenwich) clearly contravenes UNISON Rules.
 
Rule B.2.2 states that UNISON is a "member-led" Union in which decisions taken by members will be carried out. Rule B.2.5 promotes the rights of members to participate in decision-making. Rule G.3.1 confirms the rights of members to attend branch meetings, and Rule G.4.1.2 gives us the right to elect the officers of our branches. Our members in the Bromley, Greenwich and the Tenants Services Authority all have these rights and ought not now to be denied them because of unrelated disciplinary action against individuals which has now concluded.
 
Our Union Rule Book is not a trivial or irrelevant document. It is a contract between members and the Union, endorsed in the ballots which created UNISON in 1992 and amended, in accordance with Rule at successive National Delegate Conferences since 1994. The preservation of the democratic rights of trade union members is a matter of considerable importance to all who care about trade unionism.
 
I shall continue to press for a full explanation of yesterday's events and for the immediate return of these branches to the democratic control of their members in line with the Rule Book. If you have any comments or questions please do not hesitate to get in touch with me as I would welcome feedback from UNISON members in Greater London. Please feel free to pass this report on to UNISON members in the Region.
 


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unison's suburban Sigurimi

In developments which, on the face of it, have no obvious justification other than a pathological fear and hatred of dissent, our officials have sought to take over the administration of Unison branches which have been functioning perfectly well in every respect (except that their members showed a worrying tendency to elect branch officers whose political views did not meet with approval in Congress House or Mabledon Place).
In unannounced visits uninvited officials arrived at Unison branch offices in Bromley and Woolwich claiming the authority of the national Union to usurp the role of elected branch officials who have faced no criticism and done no wrong. As a mere member of our National Executive Council I had no notice of this action and my requests today for an explanation have gone unanswered.
Among the bizarre aspects of this episode (about which I shall blog in a considered way when I am less angry) is the fact that action was not taken in respect of these branches whilst they were being served by lay activists who faced disciplinary action over the production of a contested leaflet at Unison's 2007 Conference.
It is only now that the four activists concerned have been banned from holding office for periods ranging upwards from two years that steps are apparently being taken to put branches under Regional supervision.
This makes no sense unless the purpose of the exercise is simply to change the politics of the leadership of the branches concerned.
The members who have been banned from holding office aren't holding office any more - the other officers of the branches have faced no charges and done nothing wrong (unless it is now wrong in Unison to elect the "wrong" people or show loyalty to fellow trade unionists!)
This breaks so many of the Rules of our Union that I hardly know where to begin. So I'll come back to this when I've calmed down...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Why I won't be voting for Lord Ashcroft

In all the coverage of the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft the funniest story is of concerns from MPs about the accountability of the Upper House (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sUBclsEIJmU8PSkOd_cicLg/view.m?id=339877&tid=120787&cat=Search).



These would be the same MPs who have collectively failed to introduce any element of democracy into the Lords since 1997 would they?



The whole point of the Lords is that they are not accountable to anyone - and the whole point of elections is that they are our opportunity to hold to account those who have power.



That (and regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger will have seen this one coming a mile off) is why it's important our members have a choice in the election for Unison General Secretary! (http://www.paulholmeskirklees.blogspot.com/)



I should note also that it is greatly to the credit of former Unison General Secretary Rodney Bickerstaffe that he established the precedent that Unison General Secretaries do not take up a seat in the Lords upon retirement. The labour movement should do nothing to sustain this relic of feudalism.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Who is prepared to answer questions? And who is afraid to?

Of the candidates for Unison General Secretary this time round, Paul Holmes stands out for his willingness to debate and answer questions (http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/03/01/ten-questions-to-paul-holmes-of-unison/). (Follow that link for an online interview).



I understand that Paul took that willingness to our Higher Education Conference but was asked to leave a public area of the venue as he might have been trying to win votes.



In a fine example of Unison's commitment to fair play and democratic choice no other candidate spoke at the Conference. Or did I get that wrong? (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1754).



I was however saddened and disappointed to hear that a branch in the North East once strongly associated with progressive politics (and intimately involved in creating Unison United Left) has adopted a similar approach of refusing to hold hustings but inviting the current General Secretary as a "guest speaker" - perhaps (and I ask this for the benefit of regular readers Sid and Doris Local-Government-Conference-Delegate) he can be asked to fill in for forty five tedious minutes whilst votes are counted?



I of course have past experience of standing as a candidate in a General Secretary election and remember how struck I was on that occasion by the reluctance of the incumbent to engage in debate. I never understood why anyone so confident of victory was so visibly scared of the sort of direct questioning from members which every shop steward faces every day.



This time it would be an easy matter for hustings to be broadcast online. So why not? Let's have a debate in which all the declared candidates can be seen by the voters.



No one who would be afraid of such a prospect could possibly be fit to lead our Union so it is a racing certainty that all candidates will agree...



I hope...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Local government workers face decimation - there is an alternative

Today's news confirms what local government branches are being told by our employers about the likely scale of coming cutbacks - that one in ten local government workers face the axe (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sdOt9O-JTjCGCN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=337539&tid=120787&cat=UK_news).



This means that local government jobs do indeed face decimation - albeit the means of removing the "one in ten" will be less brutal than that of those who originated the use of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army).



Ever helpful, the Government have issued local authorities with a checklist of "radical efficiency reforms" to "protect frontline services" - it would make more sense if the Government would itself adopt the checklist which Unison offered last year (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1670) and raise and collect sufficient taxes to pay for the public services we need.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

2004 - a missed opportunity?

If we are to believe today's "Observer" Tony Blair came close to resigning as Prime Minister in 2004.

I remember that at UNISON National Delegate Conference 2004 the Lambeth branch called for Blair's resignation. This proposal was well and truly squashed thanks to the opposition of General Secretary Dave Prentis who feared that the Union would be marginalised by opposition to the Prime Minister of the day.

No one can say whether, had we been better able to mobilise trade union support for Blair's departure in 2004 he could have been forced out, though it seems now to have been more likely than we thought then. Had we done so I believe that a vacancy for leader created by struggle from below rather than promises in a restaurant ten years previously might have produced a contest in which a left challenge would have been a possibility.

That in turn could have opened up a much more significant space for trade union influence over a Government and Party which badly needs such influence from rank and file trade union members.

Whereas, as we know, UNISON eventually backed a fait accompli and the coronation of Blair's successor.

A tale of two elections

In UNITE the prolonged election for the first single General Secretary of the UK's largest trade union is producing numerous candidates. UNITE members seem set to have a wider choice, and more time to make a decision than we will in UNISON.

One candidate Les Baylis is standing with the support of Workers Uniting plainly a "right-wing" group within the Union though describing itself as "a broad based left-progressive organisation" (where have I heard that use of "progressive" before...?) and making imaginative use of the name of the official joint venture between UNITE and the United Steelworkers of North America.

Len McCluskey is standing with the support of the United Left and the enthusiasm of the Morning Star. Other officials standing as candidates include Paul Reuter and Gail Cartmail.

Jerry Hicks is a rank and file left candidate offering the sort of distinctive critique which it is hard to make of an organisation whilst employed by it.

Now one observation I could make in contrasting the election in UNITE with that in my own Union is that UNITE members appear to be heading for a wide choice of paid officials as candidates in the election - whereas in UNISON we are offered a more restricted menu.

However, UNISON members currently have a wider choice of rank and file candidates!

UNISON does also appear to lead the field in anonymous blogs making scurrilous attacks upon rank and file workers who dare to challenge for the position of General Secretary though - whether that is the slightly upmarket and mostly anonymous blog written largely by staff or the rather more downmarket version which specialises in hatchet jobs on the candidate I support.

Since the anonymous bloggers are certain that none of the rank and file candidates have any mainstream support you have to ask yourself why they devote such energy and venom to their attacks? Is the Prentis camp worried that a significantly lower number of branch nominations than their man secured last time will indicate growing dissatisfaction at the base of the Union? Do they worry that the fixed smiles and half-hearted (near) unanimity at national meetings may be seen through?

Or is it just all down to a hatred of "factions"? (excluding some factions obviously...)

Is it that Dave Prentis cannot restrain the excesses of his supporters (whose support is so deep and proud that they are mostly anonymous online!) or is it that he shares their desire to denigrate anyone who would oppose him (and perhaps his chosen successor)?

I remember Rodney Bickerstaffe's 1998 Conference speech in the debate on democracy (to which you can still find reference online here) in which he said; "What's a faction? If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a bloody duck, it is a duck. I know what a faction is. You know what a faction is." Well Rodney left us in no doubt on matters relating to aquatic birds!

But what, I wonder, is it if it looks like a duck, limps like a duck and it quacks like a duck?

Fight the cuts in Higher Education

UNISON members in Higher Education are gearing up to fight the cuts proposed by the Government - and are rightly calling for trade union unity in this struggle.

Joint union action online is good news - joint action in the workplaces, on the streets and - if it comes to it - on picket lines will also be required.

This is not just an issue for workers in the sector. It isn't even an issue only for those of us who (as parents or grandparents) have an immediate personal interest in access to higher education. This is about the sort of society in which we want to live.

The Rule of Law

Ministers rushing to defend the Security Service from judicial criticism (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/26/binyam-mohamed-torture-ruling-government) are behaving in a way which is as predictable as it is disappointing.



You might hope that leading representatives of a labour movement which has too often itself been the subject of dubious - if less horrendous - treatment from the same source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/06/britishidentity.tradeunions) would be keen for more effective scrutiny of MI5.



However people in positions of power will almost inevitably protect those to whom they delegate dirty work whilst protecting themselves with "plausible deniability."



This is particularly likely to be true when those whose rights are being abused are part of a demonised minority (those for example whose views may be deemed not deserving of respect).



In these circumstances - whilst it shames labour movement leaders not to have uprooted malpractice having had the power to do so - democrats can only welcome the paradox that it sometimes needs the (unelected) judiciary to protect democratic rights.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A legal victory for UNISON members

The decision of the Certification Officer in the case of Bedale -v- UNISON (which has now been promulgated and can be read online here) is a good result for UNISON.

UNISON members now have clarity that, apart from the specific exemptions set out in our election procedures, the resources of the trade union must not be used to campaign for candidates in internal trade union elections (whoever these candidates may be!) After an earlier attempt to bring such clarity was abandoned this is good news.

This prohibition on the use of UNISON resources is fair since - were it permitted to use the resources of the Union to campaign for particular candidates this would be bound to benefit incumbents. Incumbents (myself on occasion included!) tend to win trade union elections because of the obvious electoral advantages of incumbency.

Democracy in trade unions is important primarily because it offers the opportunity to hold office-holders to account by threatening to unseat them. Accountability is all about the ability to sack someone! Therefore, all we can do to level the playing field between incumbents and their challengers we should do as best we can as this is in the interests of democracy and our members.

I will return to the detail of this important decision but for now, I hope that all those who care for UNISON, our Rules and our democracy will welcome this positive decision in the interests of our members.

When is a trade union not a trade union?

The trouble with being directed to the website of the Certification Officer is that you can be distracted and start wondering about a question about which you first blogged nearly two and a half years ago!

Now a trade union is a proper trade union if it is affiliated to the TUC.

If you work for a trade union you are - of course - still eligible to be a member of a trade union since (as an employee) you may need trade union representation.

Whether or not the rules of the trade union for which you work permit you to be a member of that trade union, it makes a certain amount of sense to be a member of another trade union for the purposes of representation.

But surely, if you are committed to the trade union movement, you would want to be a member of a TUC affiliated trade union? Not to an organisation outside the TUC?? (Even if they affiliate to the General Federation of Trade Unions)

It seems more than 300 UNISON employees disagree with me!?

Update on Saturday 27 February following comments on this post;

If as has been reported SUE did try to affiliate to the TUC and were blocked then that is a disgrace. Other unionised employees of trade unions are members of TUC affiliates and the TUC ought to be open to all independent trade unions (exceptional circumstances aside such as the role of the EEPTU at Wapping in the 1980s!)

Since UNISON recognises SUE (as well as UNITE) to represent our employees we ought surely to support SUE in lobbying for admission to the TUC. It was and is a strength of our movement that we have a single trade union centre, and I certainly don't apologise for a prejudice in favour of TUC affiliated organisations.

If this information is correct then the answer to the question above is "when Brendan Barber won't let them into the TUC...)

Support PCS to defend public servants

Good luck to PCS members striking on 8 and 9 March in opposition to the attacks upon their redundancy entitlements.

There is no doubt that the Government wants to make it cheaper to sack civil servants in anticipation of mass redundancies as - whoever wins the election - politicians cave in to the demands of the bankers who caused the crisis in the first place and hack back services to close the deficit.

151 MPs backed the demand of Katy Clark that the Government think again about this attack upon the rights of its employees - but to no avail.

Following the report of our General Secretary of proposals for joint working with PCS this strike is the first opportunity for UNISON members and officials to support our brothers and sisters in PCS by joining them on their picket lines.

Sack the expensive consultants!

I'm grateful to the Guardian for allowing myself and a good comrade to respond on behalf of our Unison branches to last week's story comparing Tory plans for EasyCouncil with Labour's embryonic co-operative alternative (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/council-cooperative-privatisation-barnet-lambeth).



I am particularly pleased that the paper has picked out the phrase "sack the expensive consultants" which I shall encourage shop stewards to photocopy and stick on every noticeboard they can find.



Whilst it may be true that our working life is one long mixed-ability lesson, the wealth and diversity of knowledge and talent in the workforce of any local authority is such that there is never an excuse to use consultants who cost anything up to (and sometimes beyond) a thousand pounds a day.



If our public service employers would trust the workforce - individually and collectively - and offer us the security which could unlock our ingenuity there is much that could be done.



The same lesson, in respect of lay trade union representatives, could of course also usefully be learnt on the first floors of both Congress House and Mabledon Place.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

We can fight back

This afternoon I was proud to have been invited to speak to Unison members in Cambridgeshire who are fighting back against proposals for massive job cuts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8518240.stm).



It was really useful to be able to refer to figures from Unison's alternative budget (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1670) to explain why there is a viable alternative to cutting public spending.



The fact is that this country can afford the public services we need if we would only implement some modest tax increases on those best able to pay and collect all the tax already due to us.



Whilst this is not done we can and should support all measures increasing transparency and accountability in relation to public spending - and defending our services against cuts!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Hear no witch hunt; see no witch hunt; speak no witch hunt

This morning it was my honour to attend a lobby to express support for excellent trade unionists facing disciplinary sanctions out of all proportion to their alleged misdeeds.



Most unfortunately these sanctions have been imposed not by the employers but by our own trade union.



I have blogged in detail about this problem recently enough (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/02/unison-should-stop-attacking-our-own.html) and won't therefore go on at length.



However it is worth saying that you don't have to share the politics of victims of misuse of our disciplinary procedure in order to believe that they are entitled to justice.



And that fine trade unionists such as Brian Debus, Onay Kasab, Glenn Kelly and Suzanne Muna deserve to be respected rather than castigated.



Anyone would think that our leadership were confused and disoriented politically and therefore driven by fear and venom to castigate, isolate and demonise those whom they perceive as opponents.



Surely not.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Total Rubbish?

The frequency with which unfounded claims are being made for "Total Place" - the job cutting wheeze dreamt up by academics at Warwick - would now almost warrant a blog of their own.

Today John Denham joins in, having digested the reports of the Total Place pilots (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/denham-targets-20bn-council-savings).

Denham concludes that;  "An average saving of around 5-6% just through better use of assets across the pilot suggests that this could potentially save in the region of £20bn nationally."

So, someone somewhere undertaking a pilot project (a major objective of which is to save money) has estimated that more efficient use of particular assets in particular circumstances might save 5-6% (guesstimated perhaps?)

This is then generalised to produce a nice round headline grabbing figure. No one knows whether the particular circumstances of the particular pilot could really be "grossed up" in this way.

There are many factors which might impact upon this projected saving. To the extent that savings were to be achieved by co-locating services and vacating surplus premises (in principle an entirely sensible proposition) then if this were to be done simultaneously across the public sector the flood of property into a largely stagnant economy could make it very hard indeed to achieve savings from the disposal of surplus assets.

Its fairly obvious what drives this wishful thinking about "pain free" public spending cuts. Its the same force that drives the dreams of EasyCouncil and the "John Lewis local authority" - politicians are looking for ways to hack back public spending without devastating vital front line services.

It cannot be done - and it isn't needed. If a Government wished to reduce the deficit when (in the future) it would be prudent to do so, the largest part of this could be done by reducing tax avoidance.

Some savings programmes could be cut (Trident for example - why not fund that as a mutual venture where only those who want it pay in?)

Some savings could be made (stop paying consultants hundreds of pounds a day to tell us what we already know or would be better off without!)

There are, however, no massive savings to be made without significant and detrimental effects on public services. The answer to this dilemma is to make a positive political choice in favour of public services and the interests of working people - not to pretend to have found the holy grail of savings which aren't cuts.

The Peoples Charter, supported by the TUC, and Unison's "Million Voices" campaign both offer an alternative vision - where are the Labour politicians who will support this? (Clue - http://www.l-r-c.org.uk)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Conference deadline Tuesday!

UNISON branches need to get motions for our National Delegate Conference in by noon on Tuesday - and these have to be submitted online.

This year's Conference will come after a General Election, though the motions have to be submitted before the election - and will take place after the close of the ballot in the General Secretary election but before the declaration of the results.

It will therefore have the same absolutely normal feeling as it always does...?

Personal report of the UNISON National Executive Council Meeting 10 February 2010

This is the personal report of the February meeting of our National Executive Council (NEC) meeting which I have sent somewhat belatedly to UNISON Branches in Greater London. An official report is online at http://www.unison.org.uk/activists/pages_view.asp?did=10707. Please feel free to pass this report on to any UNISON members in Greater London.

General Secretary Election

The NEC meeting commenced with consideration of the General Secretary election. Vice-President Angela Lynes proposed that we nominate Dave Prentis, local government NEC member Glenn Kelly proposed that we nominate Roger Bannister and South East Region NEC member Mike Tucker proposed we nominate Paul Holmes. There were 38 votes for Dave, 5 (myself included) for Paul Holmes and 4 for Roger Bannister. If any London branch would like me to account for my decision to vote for Paul please contact me.

National Delegate Conference Business

The NEC agreed to submit motions on the following topics to National Delegate Conference;
Review of Political Fund Effectiveness (see below);
Organising;
Learning and Organising – Empowering members;
International Action on Climate Change;
Palestine;
The Economy;
The Future of the NHS;
Defending the LGPS;
Public Services and Taxation;
Social Care;
Total Place;
Trade Union Rights;
Workplace Consequences of the Recession.

If any London branch wants to see the text of one or more of these motions before they are published in the Preliminary Agenda please get in touch. The same goes for the Rules Amendments which the NEC agreed to submit as follows (some of which are left over from last year);
Rule C.5.2 (this is a revised attempt by the NEC to find a formula which Conference will agree in order to facilitate action to expel members of far right political organisations. I supported this revised form of words);
Rule D.3.1.1 (this Rule Amendment will create a new Service Group for Higher and Further Education);
Rule G.4.1.1 (changes the title of Branch Equality Officer to Branch Equality Co-ordinator);
Rule G.4.1.6 (prohibits one member holding more than one position as Branch Chair, Secretary or Treasurer);
Rule G.8 (creates the role of Equality Representative in the Rule Book);
Rule I.3 (this accompanies the amendment to Rule C.5.2 and deals with the same issue);
Rule J (there are some minor amendments to addresses);
Rule Q (this increases the maximum hourly rate for Reserved Low Paid seats from £7.49 to £8.75);
Schedule B (there are several amendments to uprate member benefits and apply the four week rule rather than the thirteen week rule for access to benefits).

The NEC also discussed the report of the Review of Political Funds initiated following debate at National Delegate Conference 2008. The report will be published and presented to Conference. The report itself will not be open to amendment but the motion which accompanies it will be open to amendment (though branches will need to bear in mind the ways in which Rule J restricts debate on political funds in drafting any amendments).

Members will be able to form their own judgement on the report soon (and if anyone would like a copy in advance of publication please let me know). I expressed the view that it could well be titled “Keep Calm and Carry On” since it concludes that our political fund arrangements are largely working well with high levels of transparency, participation and activity (although these – as well as our effectiveness – could be further improved).

Pay Negotiations

The NEC received an update on pay negotiations involving UNISON members. Members in the NHS are in the third year of a three year deal, but members in local government (now including Scotland) face a proposed pay freeze. The Head of Local Government reported that the National Joint Council Committee had agreed proposals to commence campaigning against the pay freeze.

Equal Pay

As usual a confidential and legally privileged paper on Equal Pay was tabled at the NEC meeting. One item of news on Equal Pay which can be reported is the subject of a UNISON press release (online at http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1727).

The Court of Appeal backed UNISON’s claim that women working for Sheffield City Council are entitled to the same bonus payments as men, in a groundbreaking equal pay case; Gibson & Ors v Sheffield City Council. The decision opens the door for thousands of women across the country to claim against their council in a similar way.

A Million Voices for Change

The Acting Head of Policy gave a verbal report on the Million Voices campaign. One third of branches had signed up as at 10 February and the Union hopes to increase this to one half shortly. The next phase of the campaign will, subject to the approval of the General Political Fund Committee, involve media advertising and celebrity endorsements.

Management Accounts

It was reported to the NEC that the revenue results for the Union in 2010 were better than budget with a net surplus of £5 Million from an income of £115.7 Million. The Chair of the Finance Committee reported that it should no longer be necessary to “top slice” branch funding to contribute to funding Equal Pay litigation and that this matter will be reported to Conference as part of the Financial Reports.

Staffing Issues

The Chair of the Staffing Committee reported on the staff pay claim and staff pension recovery plan and on the implementation of the “Meeting the Organising Challenge” project in the Regions. I asked whether there were any proposals to change the Union’s current practice of enforcing retirement at 65 and was assured that there are no such proposals.

General Secretary’s Report

The General Secretary gave a verbal report covering the following issues;
The successful Devon strike against Sodexho;
The demonstration called by the National Pensions Convention on Saturday 10 April;
Issues around governance of the Local Government Pension Scheme and proposals for legal action to seek judicial review of a local authority which has made loans to itself from its pension fund;
The importance of campaigning for the cancellation of Trident nuclear submarines in order to save money to protect public services;
The TUC is setting up a “rebuttal unit” to respond to hostile media coverage on public sector pensions;
A meeting had taken place the previous day between UNISON and PCS at a senior level to discuss joint campaigning.

Other issues

The NEC confirmed a decision of the Services to Members Committee to spend £1 Million developing a hotel at Croyde Bay. This item gave rise to a question about the new NEC policy on collective responsibility of Committee members in circumstances where an NEC member is a member of two Committees which arrive at different decisions on an issue (and is therefore required to support two contradictory positions at the NEC meeting…)

Institute for Stating the Obvious

Breaking news! Cutbacks are biting in the public sector and our managers are seriously worried about the scale of further cuts to come. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8523144.stm)



What a good job we have a high powered Institute (of Leadership and Management no less) to find this out for us (http://www.i-l-m.com/research-and-comment/7750.aspx) - though I seem to remember reading about this regularly on our Unison website for months now.



Still at least this research wasn't launched at an expensive lunch! No, there was a "breakfast briefing" with a "high-level panel debate" with a "select group of senior public leaders."



Qu'ils mangent de la brioche?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Computerised Conference seems to be working?

As promised earlier in the week I can report modest success with UNISON's online Conference system. The deadline for motions for National Delegate Conference is imminent so I hope other branches have found the same.

I accessed the system easily enough via "my unison" and was then able to submit the motions and Rule Amendments agreed by my branch. It is slightly irritating to have to enter the branch details afresh for each submission but a colleague with better understanding of information technology tells me that it would require quite a lot of a system to remember my details like that. (I hope that whoever does the submission of the dozen motions and several Rule Amendments agreed by the National Executive Council took adequate breaks whilst typing the same information over and over again!)

As well as an email receipt to myself other branch officers also received notification of the motions and Rule Amendments submitted. The wording of these notification emails (which don't require any action and are just there to make sure a Branch Secretary doesn't submit something which the Chair knows wasn't agreed by the branch) could - and I hope will - be clearer, but the basic idea is sound.

The Standing Orders Committee have not yet been computerised so the wait to see how many of our submissions make it as far as the Preliminary Agenda remains reassuringly twentieth century - and there is no automated system for ruling motions out of order. Nor any plans to introduce such.

I hope.

Total Place - there is such a thing as a free lunch!

Today's news (http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=86556) is that a Conference is taking place to announce that a 1% saving in public expenditure in the borough of Westminster would save £20 Million - because that is 1% of public spending in the borough.



This is no more than speculation. Maybe bringing "back office" functions together will save money. Maybe it won't. One thing I do know is that our public sector employers will pay through the nose for expensive consultants to try to achieve these hoped-for savings.



That won't be the only money wasted.



Whilst low paid workers facing a pay freeze and job losses have been getting on with the delivery of public services today some of their managers may have been taking in the PowerPoint presentations at the Conference.



Total Place may cost a lot of jobs but it will generate some agreeable lunches on the way. Senior officials attending this Conference will have been able to claim expenses (if not fed suitably at the event).



There is therefore such a thing as a free lunch. Just not for us.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

John Lewis on the South Bank?

Please excuse a moment's parochialism but I've just read that I'm working for (and helping to represent the crew of) a "flagship" local authority. (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/shwZrHD-cyWjrrz3VgWirMw/view.m?id=326430&tid=120787&cat=Search).



Lambeth is going to be the "John Lewis" local authority - a neat allusion to a co-operative enterprise with a reputation for quality (but one which may offer hostages to fortune).



My initial reaction (like any sane local government union Branch Secretary) is that it worries me when the media show an interest in my employer. There are too many complex things that can go wrong in a local authority and bad news always makes better headlines.



That said I think Lambeth's Labour Group do deserve some credit for - in effect - thinking ahead about how a Labour Council will deal with year after year of Tory spending cuts.



After the defeat of the struggle against rate-capping in 1986 all we had by way of Labour policy in local government was Neil Kinnock's "dented shield" - an attempt to be less bad than the Tories that posed no challenge to a Government attacking public services.



If some flesh can be put on the bones of the "John Lewis" approach then perhaps it offers a qualitatively distinct social democratic approach to local government rather than one which aspires simply to be quantitatively less bad than the Tories(and perhaps we could find a better name?)



One thing is certain - workers in Lambeth will need union organisation to protect our interests in uncertain times!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unison should stop attacking our own members

Regular readers (Sid and Doris Left-Reformist) will know that I sometimes blog about what I see as the political misuse of UNISON's disciplinary rules.

For those who may be persuaded that the current UNISON administration is of the "progressive left" and deserves uncritical support I thought I should bring together a few points worth thinking about.

As I have made clear in comments on this blog before I was once myself the subject of a disciplinary investigation by UNISON (under the previous General Secretary).

I had been found by an employment tribunal to have discriminated on grounds of race and sex against a white man whose complaints of race and sex discrimination (the tribunal found) I treated less seriously than I would have had he been black or female. Though I had denied this with the support and advice of the trade union, the tribunal found against us.

No sane person would have thought that the Union would attack me over this - but I am a bit of an awkward cuss sometimes and not every union official thinks that is a good thing...

An officer conducted the subsequent disciplinary investigation into me and did not recommend that I should be disciplined. Another officer then changed the recommendations of the report and a disciplinary investigation would have commenced against me had a - then - newly elected General Secretary not intervened to stop this.

That newly elected General Secretary is our current General Secretary and for the first few years of his tenure the blatantly politically motivated misuse of the Union's disciplinary procedure ceased. Unfortunately that has changed.

Tony Staunton was expelled on the basis of allegations of misappropriation of UNISON resources. (Not all cases of misappropriation of resources are dealt with quite so severely). Tony of course had the misfortune to be both a member of the Socialist Workers Party and am electoral threat to a prominent member of our National Executive Council.

Another Socialist Workers Party member, Yunus Bakhsh, was expelled in circumstances which cast very grave doubt upon all those who acted against him. Like Tony, Yunus (a former member of our National Executive Council - NEC) was an electoral threat in that he might well have been re-elected to the NEC.

Four members of the Socialist Party have been the subject of a quite high profile case of disciplinary action over the production of a contested leaflet - and, whilst the final outcome of this is awaited I should point out that one of the four, my friend Glenn Kelly, is a current member of the NEC.

Now there are those with influence in our trade union who may not be that troubled to see people whom they consider "Trotskyists" getting a bit of stick - but then this sort of intolerance doesn't stop once it has got a few "trot" scalps. People who have been on the bad end of witch hunts need to recognise them when they stare us in the face.

Independently minded left wing activists such as Caroline Bedale and Alan Docherty have been banned from holding office for long enough to take them past retirement because they have offended influential supporters of the current UNISON leadership.

I deeply regret that our current General Secretary (whom I personally like and respect and always have) has plainly signed up in support of this approach to internal UNISON discipline and has therefore abandoned the person he was when he stopped the unjustifiable attack upon myself.

UNISON's internal regime in recent years brings no credit upon anyone.

Anyone who thinks that they can describe themselves as part of the progressive left and wants to express their support for the current leadership of our Union needs to explain how they justify the villification of activists such as Caroline and Alan (not to mention the other comrades).

I believe that all thinking socialists know that this cannot be done.

The time for change has come.

Will comrades from positive and progressive traditions support what we know to be right or prop up a lame duck leadership in order to hold on to some individual positions in a structure which delivers too little too late for our members and the working class?

Bonuses for bankers - pay cuts for the poor

Low paid public servants - members of our sister union PCS - at the National Gallery were yesterday forced to take strike action over pay - as many earn less than the London Living Wage right in the heart of London.

This happened on the day that inflation went up to 3.5%. This won't worry everyone since it was also announced yesterday that well paid bankers will pocket massive bonuses.

Local Government workers facing a pay freeze (and therefore a real-terms pay cut of 3.5%) need to take heart from the courage of our comrades at the National Gallery as much as we feel rage at the bankers' bonuses. I see that the Kirklees branch are taking a lead.

Darlington - fighting cuts with one hand tied behind your back?

Respected UNISON activist Alan Docherty is co-ordinating the campaign to resist swinging cuts from his employer, Darlington Borough Council, that intends to cut non- education budgets by 25% over the next three years and to cut immediately low paid, mainly women workers’, in caring, leisure, and catering jobs, pay by up to 10%, by abolishing premium payments.

The branch has waged an active campaign in the media and encouraging members to attend consultation meetings en masse, to make their views known to the Council. This has had some limited successes so far, particularly a victory saving the Early Years Inclusion Service, and eleven jobs, which gives support to disabled children ages 3 to 5 to help them into nursery schools, which the Council had planned to axe in its entirety.

Last night over 100 members turned out to a lively demonstration to lobby the Labour Cabinet to drop their plans to cut pay. This rally, addressed by Unison NEC member Hannah Walter, and Trades Council Secretary, Pat Buttle, was so successful that the leaders of the Labour Group came out of the town hall to enter into a dialogue with the protesters.

Unfortunatley both Hannah and Pat also had no choice but to criticise the Unison leadership for its attack on Alan. Unison has banned Alan Docherty, Darlington LG’ s Branch Secretary, for 3 years from office. His crime was defending himself from attack over his involvement in the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) as the Tees Valley Secretary of the NESSN.

The complaint that has led to Unison’s sentence to ban Alan from office arises from a year ago when Alan stood for the NEC as a ‘Reclaim Our Union’ candidate against incumbent. The complaint arose Alan rang another activist to ask why he was proposing a motion through his branch seeking punitive action against officers and members of the Shop Stewards Network who he claimed were bringing Unison into disrepute. Alan then circulated the motion to those implicated.

This motion was backed unanimously as a statement by Unison’s Northern Regional Committee. No further discussion on this statement was then allowed within the union on the basis it contravened confidentiality under disciplinary procedures.

A NEC disciplinary committee upheld the view that Alan broke several rules associated with democratic procedures and had brought the union into disrepute and hence should be removed from office.

Alan intends to fight this decision just as he is fighting the cuts in Darlington.

Send messages of support to the Darlington branch fighting the Council cuts to;

Unison Darlington Local Govt Branch, Room 115, Town Hall, Darlington, DL1 5QT, (01325) 388270

To protest at UNISON's attacks upon Alan Docherty contact;

Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison, 1 Mabledon Pace, London, WC1H 9AJ.

Total Place - another warning

Public Finance today carries an overview of emerging lessons from the Total Place pilots.

Scroll down and you get to the reality; "if the initiative is beginning to feel like a magic wand that can easily be waved to painlessly remedy the public sector deficit, one passage from the Birmingham report might give optimists pause.

Under the heading ‘delivering major cross-sector efficiencies,’ the report argues that multiple back-office functions ‘are luxuries we can no longer afford’. It resolves to ‘deliver radical cost savings through rationalisation in these areas’.

The report was sent to PF the day after Birmingham City Council published its 2010/11 financial plan, which included a likely cull of up to 2,000 posts.

Local unions are already gearing up to fight the plans. The completion of the Total Place pilots could well signal the start of a new era of efficiency and effectiveness in public services. But it could just as easily mark the beginning of a long and convulsive period of large-scale public sector reorganisation."

UNISON activists need to climb out of our Service Group bunkers to deal with the "long and convulsive period" ahead of us.

Missing near Mabledon Place - a Labour Party card?

I have been struck by the similarity between the online biography of our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, published on the UNISON website, as UNISON copyright (published at UNISON expense using UNISON resources) and the biography on Dave's campaign website

Now whether one should cut and paste from the UNISON website electronic information which is UNISON property in order to reproduce it on a campaign website is not a question for this blog.

The question that I do want to raise concerns the one sentence which appears on the UNISON website but has not been reproduced on the campaign website, concerning the positions Dave holds in the Labour Party;

"He is a member of the Labour Party's economy commission and the Labour Party joint policy committee."

Dave's membership of the economy commission is confirmed on the Labour Party website as well as by the UNISON site. Why then is this missing from the campaign website?

Positive campaigning in an election means giving the electorate (and nominating bodies) a full and clear picture of what candidates stand for, their record and aspirations.

I know it can be tough to own up to Labour Party membership sometimes but I don't think those of us holding Labour Party cards should be ashamed to own up to our Party affiliations - not as long as we are fighting for policies in the interests of trade union members.

There is even a road back to the Labour Party from the Socialist Party!

Perhaps Dave can draw confidence from another candidate who is not ashamed of his Labour Party membership?

Numeracy Hour for the negative campaigners

I am sure that UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis is ashamed of those of his over zealous supporters who have allowed their vitriol at rank and file challenger Paul Holmes to spill over into untruthful attacks upon Paul's Kirklees Branch, thereby bringing our Union into disrepute.

The blog set up to attack Paul in Yorkshire claimed that the UNISON Density in Kirklees is only 58% and that this refutation of claims for the Kirklees branch was a blow to Paul's candidacy.

The attack was then picked up anonymously by factional blog "Unison Active" who repeated this nonsense.

Unfortunately none of those gleefully attacking UNISON in order to attack a rank and file worker with the temerity to put himself forward to lead our Union bothered to remember that a meaningful fraction needs an accurate denominator as well as a numerator.

The Kirklees branch has around 8,600 members employed by their main employer.

Of the approximately 15,000 jobs in the Council, 4,000 are held by teachers and 500 by craft workers. UNISON is not recognised to negotiate for either group and to calculate UNISON density by including these groups in the denominator is to deliberately understate the strength of our Union. I can see why the employers might do that, but not genuine trade unionists.

There are around 10,200 workers holding the approximately 11,000 jobs in respect of which UNISON is recognised (since some 400 workers have two or three different jobs with the Council) so that figure should provide the denominator, with the membership figure as the numerator.

Now, bearing in mind that all these figures are approximate, I reckon that's a UNISON density figure around 84.5%.

It may be that instead of counting teachers as part of the workforce UNISON should be organising the authors of these attacks upon UNISON ought to have had a word with one or more teachers of mathematics?

I can at least categorically refute the rumour that the London Region Finance Convenor was involved in any of the calculations!

Charities pension crisis and the future of the LGPS

The news of pension fund shortfalls for major charities (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/s70rgIJR3lLQPSkOd_cicLg/view.m?id=324213&tid=120787&cat=Search) raises a couple of issues for members in Unison's new Community Service Group who will soon be electing their first Executive.



First, the problems facing those larger voluntary organisations who have made some pension provision for their staff serves to highlight the plight of many voluntary sector workers whose employers have done far less.



Secondly, since even the largest charities are small players in the world of pension funds, this crisis underlines the desirability, from every point of view, of opening up "admitted body status" in order to broaden access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).



When Unison members see the Preliminary agenda for National Delegate Conference they will (subject to the will of the Standing Orders Committee) see a motion from the National Executive Council in defence of the LGPS.



This proposes, amongst other things, that we advocate the merger of the many separate funds at national level (there would be one fund for England for example). The logic of this proposal (which would need very careful handling to avoid redundancies!) Is that larger funds are cheaper to administer and more secure.



Extending access to the LGPS is very much in the same spirit - and could also help to break down perceived divisions between public sector workers and our colleagues in other sectors where pension provision is less secure.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

There may be trouble ahead...

Today's news (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/15/public-sector-job-cuts-cipd) from the people trying to turn Human Resources into a profession (http://www.cipd.co.uk/default.cipd) is a further indication that Peter Mandelson is getting his Blairite way and public sector job cuts are in the pipeline even ahead of the General Election.



Incidentally, the news that public sector pay is anticipated to lag well behind private sector pay at the same time as jobs are cut illustrates that pay restraint is no easy path to job security.



The head of the public sector at KPMG reportedly says that "it's only a matter of time" before the worst public spending cuts anyone can remember. News reports do not tell us whether he was salivating at the thought of the lucrative contracts all this "downsizing" and reorganisation will bring for companies like his.



It's not a matter of time though is it?



It's a matter of political choice. If we want to let the bankers whose industry the taxpayers bailed out cajole us into deficit reduction at the expense of vital services rather than ourselves taking ownership and control of the financial sector that's up to us. It is we who permit the bankers to be our masters rather than our servants.



Unison's excellent alternative budget proposals (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1670) demonstrated clearly that other political choices could be made. It is now up to us to fight for those choices.



It is because we need a debate and discussion about how to do this that I welcome the opportunity of the Unison General Secretary election (in which I support rank and file challenger Paul Holmes) - but it's as important to remember the deadline for submission of Conference motions comrades!



Now more than ever is the time for open and challenging debate.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Conference enters the twenty first century?

In common with all other UNISON Branch Secretaries (at least those with branches keen enough to submit Conference motions) I shall have to get to grips with the online submission of motions via myunison and the Online Conference System.

I'll blog in a few days to let you know how I got on. Wish me luck!

And I wish luck to my fellow Branch Secretaries - let's not leave it all to the last minute and crash the server or the poor old Standing Orders Committee will be tearing their hair out...

A lecture from Uncle Joe

For those with time on their hands to follow the sectarian obsessions of a small group of full-timers in the Union, there is more to enjoy online now.

I cannot but be reminded of the historical origins of such criticism.

Away from the feigned unanimity of the UNISON machine members in branches will be debating to whom they should give a nomination in the election for General Secretary, as well as dealing with all the other issues confronting our members.

We don't need negative campaigning but we do need to challenge candidates - and in particular the incumbent, whose record deserves scrutiny. UNISON members have now been promised an election - and elections with only one candidate (leading to a coronation) aren't in the best traditions of our movement!