Back to the Future

I remembered my sister, Mim, here a few weeks ago - today is the twenty fifth anniversary of her death, and somehow if feels as if we are right back in the 1980s just now.

Back then I used to read William Keegan in the Observer, (for the elegant despairing Keynesianism rather more than the facial hair) - today he rightly says that "the echoes of the early 1980s are deafening."

A union bashing boss is trying to break a strong trade union with the more than tacit backing of a right wing Government and little in the way of action from the top of the Labour movement. Where have we seen this before?

Who cares that a greedy and stupid millionaire ripped us off for forty grand? His real crime has been in helping to prepare for massive spending cuts which will drive up unemployment and drive down living standards for working class people.

The economic policy of the coalition Government is Thatcherism pure and simple. It is meant to increase unemployment and weaken the ability of workers to resist.

In considering how we respond it's worth a hat tip to Ian from Unite for blogging a link to the latest official statistics on trade union membership.

We are not in a strong position to respond.

In 1985 when I last saw my sister there were still more than 10.8 million trade union members. Now we have fewer than 6.8 million and union density (the percentage of workers in trade unions) has stabilised at just 27.4%.

In 1985 it was possible for socialist candidates to challenge for the leadership of a Party committed to public ownership, the Conference of which could make policy - and global capitalism still faced a global alternative.

Nevertheless respond we must. We do not need austerity. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 72.5% higher now than it was when my sister died. This is an enormously wealthy country (even after a decline in GDP of more than 5% over the past two years.

Cuts in public services, wages and pensions are not an economic necessity. If we let them happen they will have been a political choice.

Our first task is to persuade trade union members that it is possible to fight back. From that we can rebuild our movement and defend our class.

Just like the 80s. We need to consider the lessons of that terrible decade as much as the lessons of the past thirteen years of disappointment.

No honour in the Lords

One of the many disappointments after thirteen years of a "modernising" New Labour administration is that we still have a second chamber devoid of all democratic accountability.

One change is of course that now the second chamber is determined largely by patronage rather than accidents of birth, and partial modernisation means that we now learn online that "The Queen has been graciously pleased to signify Her intention of conferring Peerages of the United Kingdom for Life upon" a selection of political nominees.

The use of twenty-first century communications cannot quite hide the feudal nature of our political system - this list of peerages includes "dissolution honours" and those given peerages will adopt titles with their origins in the Middle Ages.

Whether those on the list feel honoured by the company they keep there I couldn't say.

Jean Charles de Menezes is not here to offer an opinion on Ian Blair's elevation to the House of Lords, but I sympathise with his family who describe this as a "final slap in the face".

That aside I have nothing against those on the list to receive peerages. The two most closely associated with UNISON - Margaret Wheeler and Rita Donaghy are both certainly entitled to recognition for public service and service to the movement.

I cannot shake the feeling though that if people are going to become part of the legislature they should be elected and subject to re-election.

I hope that Rodney Bickerstaffe started a tradition in UNISON when he refused a peerage upon retiring as our General Secretary!

How not to fight the BNP (Part Two)

Whilst one of the leading supporters of Unison's leadership on our NEC offers the BNP a chance to snatch back one of the Council seats denied them by working class Londoners earlier this month (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-not-to-fight-bnp-part-one.html), our NEC has failed to update our disciplinary rules in order to ease disciplinary action against members of this odious far right Party.

Last year the NEC majority ignored criticism from the left and pressed ahead with a Rule Amendment intended to facilitate action against BNP members - of whom we believe we have more than 200 in our ranks.

The basis of the (ignored) opposition was that the wording of last year's Rule Amendment could have been used as easily against members of Parties of the "far" left as the far right.

Although the NEC majority insisted that this was not their intention, they were predictably disbelieved and Conference failed to give their proposal the necessary two thirds majority.

The arrogance of those who refused to moderate their position ahead of last year's Conference vote was reflected in their exaggerated denunciation of those on the left who had understandably objected to their cack handed drafting of last year's Rule Amendment.

One NEC member in the North West made a point of excess venom.

This year the NEC was united in support of moderated amendments to Rule C (on membership) and Rule I (on discipline) which - this year - sensibly took on board the reservations expressed last year from the socialist left.

Whilst the amendment to Rule C will open Thursday afternoon's debate at Conference, the equally important amendment to Rule I never made it on to the agenda.

The most senior official who should be accountable for implementing NEC decisions (as a Branch Secretary is accountable to their Branch Committee and a Regional Secretary answerable (to some extent) to their Regional Committee) shamefully allowed a more junior employee to take the blame for the absence of this Rule Amendment from the Conference agenda.

The shrill voices of denunciation which shouted themselves hoarse after last year's Conference have been strangely silent thus far this year.

This is all a great shame as there is a good case to be made that our existing Rules are sufficiently robust to permit action to be taken against members of the BNP. Last year the leadership loyalists wouldn't admit this as they were eager to attack the left for not going along with their poorly drafted proposals.

This year it's all quiet...


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

How not to fight the BNP (part one)

I missed the start of today's meeting of the Regional Local Government Executive and therefore the congratulations to our member had been elected to Barking and Dagenham Council (http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/9-democracy/elections/results/election-results.cfm?id=28D7E78D-5056-A477-3495AB0AC4471FB5), knocking out a sitting BNP Councillor.



I was still there though for any other business and hence the news that she has resigned as a Councillor (http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/2-news-events/latest-news/2010/goresbrook-ward.html).



There will now have to be an election in Goresbrook ward, previously represented by BNP GLA member, Richard Barnbrook.



I shall not comment except to observe that it is unfortunate that a further election should have to take place so very soon after the BNP were wiped off the Council. The reasons why working class voters rejected the far right on 6 May still apply and we must work to ensure that they lead to the same consequence.



Were I - or another socialist critic of the leadership - to have stood down in such circumstances I - or they - would expect to be vilified within our Union.



I prefer not to do vilification. I will stick with disappointment.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Livingstone presumes

The highlight of a disappointingly (if not unexpectedly) inquorate meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council was without doubt the stirring speech from a UNITE member of BA Cabin Crew who exposed with great clarity the union-bashing agenda of Willie Walsh and BA management.



However the other speakers also made valuable contributions. Jon Richards national officer, called persuasively for support for a national "day of dissent" on 21 June in response to the wave of cuts currently engulfing our colleges and Universities. Dissent is of course tremendously important and it was good to see an unequivocal welcome for dissent from our Regional Secretary.



Our final speaker was former London Mayor and - IMHO as importantly - former GLC Leader Ken Livingstone who will clearly be seeking the Labour nomination for Mayor in 2012.



Ken pointed out that whereas in 1992 the Tory lead over Labour in London had exceeded their national lead, by 2010 Labour had retained a lead in London in the face of a similar lead for the Tories nationally. He suggested that this was due to the more progressive direction of the Labour Party in London, as developed over the past generation.



Ken also had some welcome positive words for trade unionists trying to push Labour administrations to resist the cuts agenda of central Government.



I hope that the Regional Labour Link Committee will encourage the widespread consultation amongst levy payers that will give our (hoped for) support of Livingstone for Mayor real weight and force.



Unusually we were permitted to ask questions - and Danny Hoggan from Greenwich made an excellent contribution rightly highlighting the disgraceful treatment of his UNISON branch. As the top table sought without success to stifle Danny's contribution it became clear that our support for "dissent" is not supposed to be unlimited...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Two Eds no better than one

Word reaches your humble blogger of confusion at the very top of our Union where the word appears to have gone out to back Ed for Labour Leader.

But which one? Should it be Ed Miliband, author of the manifesto on which Labour just lost an election, who did so much to reach out to the environmental lobby by backing nuclear power?

Or should we be commending to our members Ed Balls, who last year removed the requirement for sponsors of Academy schools to put up any cash at all (http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2009_0158)? Bearing in mind that Unison rightly supports the Anti-Academies Alliance our members might respond to such a recommendation simply by repeating the candidate's surname...

It doesn't matter. Neither Ed can offer the change necessary to rebuild Labour - both offer continuity with the policies of a Government that failed to do just that.

With the senior leadership of our Union united in their support for a "steady as she goes" candidate for General Secretary, committed to maintaining the status quo for a full five year term (albeit with a few more senior appointments) it ought not to come as a shock that a similar, complacent, view is being taken in relation to the Labour Party.

Yet somehow I am always disappointed when I realise once more that the prospect of Unison pursuing the progressive politics reflected in our own policies in relation to the Labour Party is negligible. We could have done the Party so much good in the past had we been more willing really to take on its leadership. I struggle to believe that we might continue to refuse to do so - and am reminded why I voted for Paul Holmes for General Secretary!

Will a majority of the National Labour Link Committee do as they are likely to be told and back one of the Brownite candidates so they can be as successful a Leader for Labour as their former mentor?

Regular readers Sid and Doris Mabledon-Tank will guess the answer to this question, but will have discounted this blog post on the basis of my foolish and old fashioned belief that we should be recommending support in the Labour Leadership election for a candidate who has consistently supported our members and our policies (http://www.johnmcdonnell.org.uk/).


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Bakers back McDonnell

In a letter to all Labour MPs, the Labour affiliated Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU) have called for nominations for John McDonnell in the contest for the Labour Leadership (http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/files/BFAWU1.pdf).



Joe Marino (General Secretary) and Ronnie Draper (President) write:

 

"BFAWU recognises the unquestionable and unwavering work that John McDonnell has done for the British trade union movement.

 

We also welcome his determination that working people must not be made for a crisis that is not of their making, and his opposition to the Con-Dem cuts agenda that will devastate our communities.

 

Therefore we are calling upon all Labour MPs and members of the Bakers Union Parliamentary Group in particular to nominate John McDonnell in the interests of party democracy, regardless of the final candidate they may choose to support."



Hat tip LRC (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/trade-unions-back-john-for-labour-party-leader/).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Law and the Trade Unions - a timely reminder

Don't forget the timely discussion on the law and the trade unions coming up this Thursday evening!

As you'll recall the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and Institute for Employment Rights
invite you to joint Lord Wedderburn QC and Jim Mortimer (former Labour Party General Secretary) in conversation with John Hendy QC on a topic which could hardly be more important after last week's legal rulings around the BA strike.

Thursday 27 May 2010, 6.30pm - 8.30pm at Invision Suites 1 and 2, TUC, Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS, nearest tube Tottenham Court Road.

News from across the pond

Since we, as a Union, are quite deliberately - and in my view rightly - working with colleagues from the American SEIU in the Three Companies Project it is right that we should keep abreast of what is going on in relation to their former leader Andy Stern, and his successor, Mary Kay Henry.

I would welcome updates from UNISON colleagues involved with the Three Companies Project to share with NEC colleagues. The genesis of this project did not reflect the very best of our Union's lay democracy, but it's achievements could be very significant.

A hat tip to Debbie Anderson at UNITE HERE for the links to US media coverage of the SEIU.

Support BA Cabin Crew

I have added a link on the side of the blog to the micro site from which you can email British Airways in support of the Cabin Crew in dispute with the airline.

This is timely as the strike starting tomorrow appears now to be going ahead.

Whether you blame Willie Walsh's intransigence, Derek Simpson's twittering, the adventurism of some members of a left group or the fundamental conflict of interests between labour and capital for the absence of a settlement in this dispute it is pretty easy for trade unionists to decide what to think.

Good luck to BASSA and their striking members.

Predictable outrage of the smear-mongers

I notice that, from the safety of anonymity, one of the bloggers over at UNISON Active has made a desperate attempt to link leading left candidate for UNISON General Secretary, Paul Holmes, to the foolish disruption of negotiations between BA and UNITE at ACAS yesterday.

I won't detain you on that topic dear reader. The internet is full of criticism (some justified and some excessive) of those responsible for the disruption (and a sort of defence of the action from the SWP).

For what it's worth I don't think there is any political point in invading the ACAS office (a workplace for a lot of PCS members trying to do a decent job of keeping conciliation work in the public sector and stopping solicitors raking in money for the old rope of signing off compromise agreements).

What strikes me though is how eager the Prentis camp are to try to associate Paul with this episode. This reflects the disappointing red-scare tactics of Dave's election address.

The fact that members of the Socialist Workers Party support Paul no more associates Paul with the SWP than the fact that leading members of the Communist Party of Britain play a key role in supporting Dave Prentis means that Dave is a secret fan of the Red Army Choir. Paul is no more "beholden" to the SWP than Dave is to the CPB. In fact I have more often heard Paul Holmes be open about his membership of the Labour Party than I have our current General Secretary.

If supporters of Dave Prentis were truly confident of their own politics or their candidate they would be inviting all comers to online hustings and debating the policies, not seeking to smear their opponents. How sad.

Unison - Challenge received wisdom!

We are approaching the second week of voting in the Unison General Secretary election and the received wisdom is that most of those who are going to vote will already have done so.



The received wisdom is also that a rank and file member cannot be elected as our General Secretary - and that we must elect a full-time officer.



The received wisdom also holds that a divided left must hand victory to the incumbent - and that the supporters of a failed challenge can expect to be trounced in the next elections to the National Executive.



The received wisdom is that the power of patronage gives an unbeatable advantage to the official "machine" as long as it maintains its unity and wears the necessary left face.



I say we should challenge the received wisdom by working hard from now on to get out the vote from the 80% of Unison members who have certainly not yet voted.



Any members of the Union who get to hear the candidates speak will be overwhelmingly likely to support Paul Holmes. We can circulate links to Paul speaking on youtube.



The triumph of the received wisdom will be if the large majority of members are kept distant from the process of choosing our General Secretary.



If we get the vote out anything is possible.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support grows for John McDonnell

Whilst regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger will know that I am very concerned about the Unison General Secretary election (in connection with which I yesterday gave a leaflet to the main challenger to leading left candidate Paul Holmes) - no sensible trade unionist can ignore the Labour leadership election.

The latest online poll (http://www.labourlist.org/may-21-labourlist-leadership-poll-the-results) shows a surge in support for John McDonnell, whose support has doubled in a week and shows the largest percentage point increase of any candidate.

John is in third place behind the disappointing offspring of Ralph Miliband.

Unison United Left supported John's leadership bid at our AGM on Saturday and were right to do so.

John has done more to build the organisation of the left and the rank and file in our movement than any other socialist Parliamentarian.

Whilst there is an urgent need for effective diplomacy within the PLP - and clearly the Campaign Group must ensure a united Left campaign around a single candidate - rank and file activists must make crystal clear to all MPs that John is the best candidate around whom to build enduring rank and file organisation to keep up the pressure for socialist policies within our Party and our movement (and therefore to support Campaign Group MPs in a spirit of accountability).

I understand the initial flurry of excitement arising from the celebrity candidacy of TV star Diane Abbott but am not persuaded that we should choose her as standard bearer of a rank and file left of which she has never really been a part.

The "fan club" style of organisation on the Left, epitomised by "Progressive London" and associated with a political tradition rooted in a certain part of the old International Marxist Group, doesn't seem to me to offer a worthwhile model for taking socialist politics forward in the Labour movement in the twenty first century.

Trade unionists who believe that our affiliated levy payers are entitled to an opportunity to vote for a candidate for Labour Leader who will consistently support ourselves and our unions should lobby Labour MPs to nominate John McDonnell.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Harriet Harman or Horrible Hypocrite?

Today, like other Labour Party members, I got an email from our Acting Leader, Harriet Harman, asking me to encourage friends and family to join the Labour Party.

Harriet told me to let them know that, by joining before 8th September, they can help choose our next Leader.

Harriet forgot to mention in her email to Party members that the choice I am to offer to those of my family and friends who join the Party will be limited to those candidates who secure sufficient nominations from Members of Parliament between 24 and 27 May!

John McDonnell is right to describe this as a stitch up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8690259.stm). We have been done up like kippers!

If you will excuse my quoting from a press release from the Labour Representation Committee I will share the following;

"Effectively this means that the whole process is biased towards the Labour hierarchy's favoured candidates, largely excluding the possibility of others coming forward to secure sufficient nominations.

It also prevents rank and file party members having any say over the process. Labour MPs will have no real opportunity to consult their local parties and constituency parties will have no time to meet.

John McDonnell said:
 
"We thought that New Labour had learnt its lesson from the coronation of Gordon Brown and wanted a genuinely democratic process this time round. By curtailing the nomination process so drastically in this way the whole process is being discredited from the start. Effectively excluding rank and file members of the party in this way will just alienate all those who are looking for a fresh start."

If the truncated nomination period means that the Parliamentary Labour Party fail to put a socialist on the ballot paper for Party members and trade unionists to vote for then the contest will become a pointless marionette show.

Harriet's email will have been utterly hypocritical if we end up without the choice of a break with New Labour on the ballot paper for Labour Leader. No former Cabinet member can offer this.

All those who wish to rescue Harriet from hypocrisy and - more importantly - rescue the Labour Party from irrelevance must pile the pressure on Labour MPs to nominate John McDonnell and give Party members and trade unionists a real choice.

We have a matter of days in which to act.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Labour Leadership - trade unionists need a choice

With Jon Cruddas ruling himself out of the race for Labour Leader (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/jon-cruddas-labour-leadership-race) there remains a crying need for a socialist presence in the fight for Labour's future.



Candidates who, in office, backed tuition fees, ID cards and imperialist foreign policy won't help Labour attract back "progressive" voters duped by the coalition.



Supporters of PFI, foundation hospitals, academy schools and housing stock transfers cannot credibly appeal to public sector workers.



Similarly, candidates who, in office failed to back the Trade Union Freedom Bill - leaving us at the mercy of judges yearning for a new Taff Vale - deserve no support from trade unionists.



The break with the past which we need now is not to do with age, presentation or personality - it is a break from the policies of New Labour which is needed.



For the leadership election to become a process out of which such change can come it is essential that members of the Parliamentary Labour Party use their right to make nominations in order to ensure a wide debate which includes the socialist left of the Party.



As a Labour Party member and political levy payer I want a right to vote for a field of candidates which is broader not only than the Miliband family, but also the whole dysfunctional New Labour family of "Blairites" and "Brownites."



Union members who share this view need to begin pressing MPs to nominate John McDonnell, the willing socialist candidate best placed to make it onto the ballot paper.



John has stood on the side of trade unions and the working class against New Labour and continues to do so against the "ConDem" coalition.



With no prospect of a Cruddas candidacy those who wanted a "leftish" presence now face a clear choice.



Only a Socialist Campaign Group candidacy can now make the leadership election into the meaningful debate the Party - and the movement - needs.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What is to be done?

Today, as I have just observed, the Government announced an unprecedented attack upon our social wage (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/05/millionaires-take-on-millions.html) whilst the courts made clear that effective industrial opposition may be all but impossible within the law (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-angry-to-think-of-witty-title-for.html).

Trade unionists face our greatest challenge in a generation and to meet it we need to renew our organisation.

I offer a few suggestions.

We need to enthuse our active members with a positive lead into taking immediate action - starting with a demonstration on Budget Day.

We need to build alliances with those who share our interests - not those who have attacked those interests. We must not endorse Blairites or Brownites.

We need to invert our Union. We must be bottom up, not top down. Career officials should be subordinate to ordinary workers.

We need to cherish dissent and disobedience, without which we would have no trade unions. Let's reverse some of the recent injustices to good members.

We need to remember the Clyde Workers' Committee and build solidarity "with the officials when we can, without them when we must."

We also need to remember the "Miners' Next Step" and mount a challenge in union elections to all those who cannot be relied on to fight.

For these and other reasons I shall support Paul Holmes for UNISON General Secretary. Who leads the Union is not the only question. Nor is it unimportant.

Looking back at the few suggestions I have just made about how we respond to a truly frightening time, it is self-evident to me that Paul is best suited to these tasks.

There may be times when it is best to trust to a tried and tested "safe pair of hands" who has made a career out of working for a Union. These are not those.

More of the same from our Union leadership will offer "less of the same" to our members. Less pay. Less pension provision. Fewer jobs.

No honest assessment of our achievements over the past decade could salute a triumph. Now it will get harder.

Our enemies have changed. We need to.

Vote Paul Holmes.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Too angry to think of a witty title for a blog post!

This news is almost but not quite unbelievable.

UNITE’s ballot in favour of strike action by BA aircrew is ruled unlawful by a judge because of minor errors in communicating the result. That’s a bit like saying we should rerun the General Election because of a typo in the newspaper reporting the outcome (as a Grauniad reader that suddenly seems to me like a good idea!)

This outrageous extension of the legal restrictions on the right to strike through judge-made law is a timely advantage for the Government of Millionaires and underline the point that the judiciary, as much as the legislature and executive, are part of the state apparatus which exists to perpetuate a capitalist class society.

I agree with Bob Crow who has said that “there is no doubt that this new Con-Dem government wants to effectively outlaw strikes in publicly used services before they swing the axe at our hospitals, schools and fire stations, and the courts are the battering ram to make that happen.”

This poses an incredibly serious challenge to UNISON given that in recent years our Standing Orders Committee has been given legal advice that the meaning of Rule B.4.5 is such that our Conference may not even debate the possibility of deciding to break the law.

Given the impact of public spending cuts upon the poorest and most vulnerable in our society we may need to remind ourselves of the words of George Lansbury.

"It is better to break the law than to break the poor".

The Millionaires take on the Millions

This is it then – here is the Chancellor’s speech in which he announces the Emergency Budget.

In a speech full of ritual denunciation of the previous Government (so much for “new politics”) we are promised more and more pain.

We are told that it is all somehow in our interests – that if we don’t savage public spending it is we who will suffer.

Osborne says, “If we don’t get on top of our debt, every family in Britain will be poorer and the dreams of millions of young people will be dashed”.

On the contrary premature reductions in the deficit will make some of us a lot poorer and most of us a bit poorer. If, like two thirds of the Cabinet, you are a millionaire the I suppose it doesn’t matter much.

This budget is the dream of millionaires and a nightmare for millions.

A majority of our Cabinet of millionaires went to public (i.e. private) schools or (as they sometimes prefer) “independent” schools. They seem to value a certain independence…

The “independent” Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the creation of which Osborne announced today, is “independent” it seems to me in much the same way as an “independent” central bank.

Our rulers want to increase their “independence” from accountability to us. The “independent” central bank takes key monetary policy decisions out of the democratic sphere and this new creation will start to do the same for fiscal policy.

Of course, in a class society, no one is truly “independent” and what these bodies will do is what a capitalist society needs from the state – they will attempt above all to reproduce the conditions in which private capital can make a profit.

Politicians sometimes have to pretend to care if economic policy decisions taken in pursuit of that overriding objective devastate our public services. The “independent” OBR, just like the “independent” central bank, doesn’t need to bother, and furnishes the politicians with an alibi.

The trade unions need to plan from now for a massive demonstration outside Parliament on the day of the Emergency Budget to signal the start of the war that must now be fought to defend our public services and our Welfare State.

Tweedledee and Tweedledem are in charge - we must not be Tweedledumber!

Slightly over thirteen years ago I remember walking along Whitehall just to watch the removal vans at work on Friday 2 May 1997. I tried hard then to suspend disbelief and join the euphoria.

However, whilst I do remember telling a Human Resources Director that now there was a Labour Government he had to call union officials "sir" or "madam," I never really put any hope in that one public schoolboy who took office then - except that I knew (and have always known) the truth that the Tories are always worse.

Today we have the nauseating sight of two public schoolboys gleefully entering No. 10 in order to attack the working class and devastate our public services (because sadly our one public schoolboy - and his unelected [but union endorsed] successor - missed the once-in-a-century chance to make real change in this country because they had time for imperialist wars but not to repeal anti-union laws).

I am tribally Labour and have always known that Tories are hateful. The last couple of days have underlined that the Liberals are also an anti-working class outfit (just as the German Free Democrats have been consistent advocates of the interests of big business). Labour is hideously flawed but it is the only political vehicle available to working class people to achieve our aims (please will everyone else on the left - including the CPB backers of the Unison establishment - now abandon their illusions in the availability of an alternative and join the socialists trying to make Labour what it ought to be?)

If trade unionists are to defend our class from the coming onslaught we need to make the right allies and use such influence as we have to pull the Labour Party back to represent the working class and the public services which form our vital "social wage". An effective Labour opposition will make a material difference to the scale of horrors about to be visited upon us.

The best way to drive the Labour Party in our direction and to ensure that there is effective Parliamentary opposition to the "savage cuts" promised by the "Condem" government is to push 33 MPs to nominate a socialist candidate for Labour Leader in the forthcoming election.

A Campaign Group candidate could command such support in the electoral college that they would, by their candidature, force the Party and trade union leadership to take proper account of the widespread support for socialist policies at the heart of the UK labour movement.

The reality of our rightwing Government is today the obituary of the New Labour project. If the unions back Blairites to run Labour as a cosy opposition to the savage "Condem" Government then we will be abandoning our members to the coming attacks.

We need to back Labour politicians who want to take on the rightwing Government - not those who wish that they were the rightwing Government (as they have been in the recent past). This means we have to go beyond backing "Brownites" against "Blairites" - we need to back socialists.

It is for this reason (amongst others) that I will back the socialist candidate - Paul Holmes - in the election for General Secretary of Unison. Paul is an unashamed Labour member (which distinguishes him in my view from his opponents) but he will not curry favour with worthless timeservers such as Alan Johnson.

The project of Unison's leadership over the last decade was to lean gently on the Labour Government whilst standing slightly to their left. It's legacy is PFI, Foundation hospitals, stock transfers and privatisation. (And of course top up fees, the Iraq war and the retention of the anti-union laws).

Whilst we have managed to grow our membership (albeit at a lesser rate than the increase in public service employment) we are not stronger and more effective than we were when New Labour took office.

An honest assessment of the last decade would have to conclude that we had failed to punch the weight our 1.3 million members give us. When being honest in private supporters of Unison's current leadership concede this point.

Such is the atmosphere of intolerance in our trade union that it is rare that such concessions will be made in public (even though individuals at the very heart of the campaign to re-elect our current General Secretary plainly take that view).

Unison members who hope that their subscriptions will pay for effective organisation of resistance to cuts in jobs, services, conditions and pensions should back Paul Holmes. I am proud to be one of those who will do so.

We face Tweedledee and Tweedledem in Government - let us not be Tweedledumb in response!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Their Master's Voice

As the bosses' parties keep talking the bosses themselves have issued their instructions (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sjlT8LSBYu1j5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=428097&tid=120787&cat=Search).



The CBI say that our elected politicians don't need to panic about forming a coalition but need to get on with it.



Who asked them?



What is it about making money from the labour of others that makes "business leaders" feel their opinions should be listened to?



I hope Labour politicians will listen to the views of workers and local communities as assiduously as the Tories and Liberals will do the bidding of big business.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Law Versus the Trade Unions? Reflections on the Past and Strategies for the Future

My friend and comrade Liz Davies has asked me to publicise this important - and perhaps all to timely - event coming up on Thursday 27 May.

The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and Institute for Employment Rights invite you to Lord Wedderburn QC and Jim Mortimer (former Labour Party General Secretary) in conversation with John Hendy QC

"The Law Versus the Trade Unions? Reflections on the Past and Strategies for the Future".

The speakers will reflect on the trade unions' relationship with the law and legal strategies, including thoughts on the 1984 – 1985 miners' strike, legal assaults on the right to strike and other forms of collective action along with the growing emphasis on individual redress
through employment tribunals. In the present context of a severe economic crisis and increased attacks on workers, this meeting aims to equip a new generation with lessons learnt on how to both use and confront the law in the struggles ahead.

Thursday 27 May 2010, 6.30pm - 8.30pm at Invision Suites 1 and 2, TUC, Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS, nearest tube Tottenham Court Road.

Admisison free (£10 to legal practitioners requiring CPD points).

John Hendy QC is a leading QC in the areas of employment law, health and safety, public inquiries and personal injuries. He has represented the National Union of Mineworkers on numerous occasions, appeared in the inquiries into the Southall and Ladbroke Grove train crashes on behalf of the victims, and led the ground-breaking test case litigation establishing liability for "vibration white finger" on behalf of British Coal mineworkers. He is currently acting for Unite in the British Airways litigation. He is a Vice-President of the Haldane Society.


Jim Mortimer was General Secretary of the Labour Party between 1982 and 1987. He played a notable role in the miners' strike of 1984 – 1985, throwing himself into support for the miners and being given honorary membership of the NUM in recognition of his efforts. Prior to becoming General Secretary, he had been a national official of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, later to become part of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union (MSF) and now contained within Unite. He was a trade union member of the National Board for Prices and Incomes between 1968 and 1971, and was the first Chairman of ACAS.


Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC is a distinguished employment lawyer and legal academic and was Professor of Commercial Law at the LSE 1964 - 92. His books range from The Worker and the Law (first published 1965) to Employment Rights in Britain and Europe (1992), and Labour Law and Freedom (1997). In 1998, European Community Law: Principles and Perspectives, containing essays by an international group of writers, was published in his honour. He is a Labour member of the House of Lords and a Vice-President of the Haldane Society.


With the kind sponsorship of Garden Court Chambers, O H Parsons & Partners, Old Square Chambers, Pattinson & Brewer, Thompsons solicitors and Tooks Court Chambers.

Further information: http://www.blogger.com/www.haldane.org and http://www.blogger.com/www.ier.org.uk.

Now for the next elections! - to lead our Unions

As the two public schoolboys meet in private to see if the Tories and Lib Dems can cobble together a joint plan to attack the working class, I am looking forward to hearing from Paul Holmes and Jerry Hicks on Thursday about their rank and file campaigns to lead UNISON and UNITE in opposition to these attacks.

Our trade unions achieved far less than we had hoped for out of thirteen years of majority Government by a Party to which we are affiliated and to whose finances we have contributed immensely.

The most we can expect from the current horse-trading around Westminster is that it may slightly delay a far more combative approach towards us from a UK Government than we have been used to for some years.

To meet this challenge we need to renew our organisation and leadership. The ballot for UNISON General Secretary opens in a week's time, and nominations for the General Secretary of UNITE are expected to open shortly.

These elections are an opportunity for trade unionists to debate what we do next - and to build the rank and file organisation which we will require if we are to defend our jobs, pensions and conditions of service over the next couple of years.

Londoners have not voted for cuts in local government services

Dave Hill's Grauniad blog gives a good overview of the local election results in London which showed a surge in support for Labour.

Whilst it is great to note the smashing of the racist British National Party in East London, the story across the whole city is that London's working class voted against the Tories - and in favour of Labour local authorities to defend services from a widely anticipated Tory Government.

The point made by Dave Prentis nationally applies with particular force in London. There is no compelling macroeconomic case for big reductions in public spending (whether or on "front line" services or "back office functions" - the deflationary impact of spending cuts is the same!) - nor is there political support from local communities for cuts in spending.

UNISON activists need to build links with community groups and service users and put pressure on Labour politicians in particular to stand alongside our communities to defend our services.

Never mind the Government...

What I want to know is who will be in opposition to the attacks which the next Government will make on the working class? (And I am sorry that the best opponent of such attacks came second rather than first in Brighton Pavilion - I hope we fight the next election using the Alternative vote...)



Seriously, trade unionists ought not to be too interested in the flirtation by Cameron and Brown with Clegg. We need to know which Parliamentarians will stand with us against the coming onslaught.



The pundits are asking who will be the Government. Now that I have woken up I want to know who will be supporting us as part of the opposition.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Voting for our Party - not New Labour's record of reaction

George Monbiot does a service to all those socialists pained at the prospect of voting for a Party which has - in Government - betrayed or disappointed so many of our ideals by summarising in today's Grauniad that sad litany of reactionary policies and their negative consequences (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/parasite-new-labour-fear-hope).

For those who approach politics as individual consumers seeking the most palatable policy mix for which to vote - and believing that things are so bad that anything which precipitates constitutional change must be good this may be a persuasive approach.

My neighbours with Green posters hoping that the bookies are right about Brighton Pavilion would doubtless agree.

However, the point for trade unionists about supporting Labour - and supporting in particular the decent leftwing candidates who will be the heart of any effective Parliamentary voice against the coming onslaught on jobs and services - is not so much what (New) Labour in Government has or has not done. Rather, what matters is what Labour is.

For trade unionists support for a political party ought not to be a matter of individual choice but of collective engagement. The horrors of New Labour in Government are attributable in large part to the failure of that collective engagement due to the political weakness of the leaderships of the big affiliated trade unions.

The answer is not for individuals to find a nice cosy progressive alternative in the privacy of the polling booth, but for trade unionists to organise effectively for collective political influence in the context of the coming struggles.

It is not predetermined that such organised collective political work by trade unionists will always take the same Party political shape.

One of the most important debates at Unison Conference could (dependent on the prioritisation process) be on the NEC amendment to Motion 53 from the Havering branch (the amendment seeks to remove reference to the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG) - an imaginative attempt to develop collective political influence by affiliated and non-affiliated unions which is too radical by half for Mabledon Place). TUCG is not counterposed to Labour affiliation but nor is it constrained by it.

We cannot foresee how things may change in the future - although it is foolish to imagine that, in an atmosphere of hostility to politics and with a resurgent far right (and comprehensively marginalised far left) all change must be for the better.

In any event, right here and right now, the collective engagement of the trade unions is with the Party formed by our predecessors a century ago - in the ranks of which we will find our most useful Parliamentary allies in opposition to the attacks we can anticipate from the next Government.

If you don't read much on this blog for the next couple of days it'll be because I'm working for the election of a good Labour candidate. Good luck to Nancy Platts!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Red not Brown

Labour's campaign in this General Election has been a car crash (literally - http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sG7oaIXeNM7iuj41C1_S3Xg/view.m?id=410695&tid=120787&cat=General_election_2010).

Those of us who wanted to see Gordon Brown's claim to the Labour leadership tested in a ballot have been vindicated to a degree that we could not have anticipated and, in the circumstances, would not have desired.

However trade unionists need now to do what we can both to stand by and hold on to a union-linked political party.

Many good socialist comrades (quite understandably) cannot stomach voting for a Party that - in Government - could find the time and energy for imperialist wars but not to repeal the anti-union laws.

However - in the great majority of constituencies across the United Kingdom - there is no viable alternative to the left of Labour.

The Liberal Democrats may be more progressive than the New Labour Government on civil liberties and nuclear weapons, but they are in favour of "savage" public spending cuts and so are clearly to the right of the outgoing Government on the most important issue of the moment.

The Lib Dems are also - inevitably - to the forefront of those promoting coalition or even a National Government (the most threatening option of all for the working class).

The Blairite idea that the historic creation of the Labour Party (initially as the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900 was a mistake (and that "progressives" should have stuck with Lib-Labism) was always an attack upon the link between our Party and our unions.

The link - and in particular the pathetically poor use of that link by the leaderships of the affiliated unions over thirteen years - comes in for justified criticism from the left.

However those who really hate the link between the trade union movement and our Party are those to whom the very idea of political influence for the organised working class is anathema.

What has been going wrong is not that our unions have backed Labour - but that Labour, in Government, has not backed the unions and the working class.

It is not the fact of our organic relationship with the Party founded by the unions that is a problem - it is the utter inadequacy of our attempts to derive benefit from that relationship for union members.

We should neither forget the Labour leadership (non) election nor forgive the craven support shown for Gordon Brown by decisionmakers in Unison and other unions back when we had the chance instead to support the a real trade unionist.

As we watch the car crash we should remember that the hands on the steering wheel have been those of the leaderships of the largest affiliated unions.

Nevertheless, the answer to the shortcomings in the relationship between our Labour Party and the organised working class is clearly not to collapse into support for Nick Clegg and a (purportedly) "progressive" politics from which all influence for the collective organisations of our class are systematically excluded.

Between now and Thursday we need to get our members to vote Labour. Beyond that we need to equip ourselves to participate in the coming struggle within the Labour Party in order - at the least - to press the case against participation in a National Government.

Whilst the prospect of electoral reform may rewrite the rules which have governed the relationship between Party and unions for a century, for now the interests of trade unionists are best served by a Labour vote backed by a serious attempt to hold Labour Parliamentarians to account in the face of the working class.

I wouldn't vote "Brown" but I will vote Red.

Son of FRS17 and the LGPS

The title of this blog post has not been approved by regular readers Sid and Doris Plain-English, but bear with me...



The Grauniad reports that an addition to FRS17 - the accountancy rules that helped to accelerate the private sector flight from proper pensions provision - is in the offing (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/29/pension-rules-force-final-salary-closures).



The requirement to report a snapshot of pension scheme assets and liabilities with annual accounts prompted most private employers to close defined benefit pension schemes to new entrants. A further turn of this screw may see more schemes closed altogether.



This will worsen our position as we try to defend public sector pensions from the Clegg-Cameron attack which looks so likely to start a week from now. We know that a future Government will seek to justify a straightforward cost-cutting attack upon low paid public servants in retirement as a measure bringing "fairness" as between public and private sector workers.



I think this underlines the importance of extending "admitted body" status in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) so that private sector workers can press their employers to admit them to a decent defined benefit pension scheme (the assets and liabilities of which do not need to be reported to shareholders).



Whatever the depth of the economic crisis our enormously wealthy country can afford decent pensions for working people - attacks on pensions will be political choice not economic necessity.



One contribution to the defence against these attacks is to try to open up access to the LGPS more widely to private sector workers, to offer defined benefit pensions which won't fall foul of FRS17 or its offspring.



I hope that Unison Conference will take up this proposal.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Your own Question Time

If you have a spare few minutes I strongly recommend you click here.

It takes you to the facility on the UNISON website to ask whatever questions you want of Parliamentary candidates in your locality.

One note of caution - local authority employees should not use their employer's internet connections for this sort of political activity in the pre-election period.

What to make of Labour promises...

Unison members coming to the question of how to cast our votes next week (or sooner for those with postal votes) cannot vote for a major Party which reflects the broadly progressive policies of our trade union.

No one with a chance of putting a foot over the threshold of No. 10 Downing Street is outwith the neoliberal consensus that working class people and our public services must pay the price for an economic crisis engendered by a system inimical to our interests.

That said, it would be foolish to ignore such differences as there are between the major parties and - in particular - to fail to give weight to the limited commitments we have from Labour, whether over public sector pensions in general (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=5989) or over pay and pensions in the NHS in particular (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=6001).

Of course, these commitments - broadly to stick to existing Government policy - meet neither the aspirations of our members nor the requirements of the economic crisis.

Liam Byrne's letter to Dave Prentis on pensions did no more than affirm the 2005 Agreement.

Andy Burnham's letter to NHS staff was even woolier, but it did oppose the Tory plans for a pay freeze.

Therefore whilst we might hope for more from "our" Party, we have to judge Labour's commitments against the threats from the Tories.

We also have to be realistic about whether it is possible to trust commitments made by politicians seeking elected office.

It isn't.

That's not the point.

If we gave our votes to Labour on the basis of such assurances and somehow (against the run of play) there were a Labour Government we would be foolish to sit back and trust their words.

Any Government will face intense pressure from the financial markets to renege upon pledges which sustain public spending - and it will be our job to mobilise countervailing pressure on the streets and outside Parliament (working with the allies we will still have within the Palace of Westminster).

We would be in a stronger position to put pressure on a Government which had offered us commitments rather than one which had won an election offering us only threats.

More importantly perhaps - looking at the polls - we may need to mobilise to demand that Labour politicians refuse to join any Government in which they cannot keep the promises they have now made to public sector workers.

In short, promises from Labour politicians are not achievements but rather tools with which we may try to defend ourselves and whilst a Labour vote on May 6th is the best of our available options, it is in how we use such promises from May 7th onwards that we shall give them any real meaning or value.

For now, vote Labour - but socialism is for life, not just for an election, and the really hard campaign comes next, whatever the result next week.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Don't believe everything you read in the papers

This is the text of a letter sent from Unison to the Grauniad following a news report that our General Secretary was an "Assistant Treasurer" of the Labour Party;



"Your article about Sir Gulam Noon raising funds for the Labour Party (17 April) referred to a role played by UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis. Dave Prentis is not an assistant treasurer of the Labour Party, nor does he sit on Labour's board of assistant treasurers and, to his knowledge, he has never met Sir Gulam Noon or Nigel Doughty, two of the people mentioned by name in the report. I would be grateful if you would publish this correction at the earliest opportunity."



I share this with you as I made the mistake of believing the Grauniad at first and know that others did too.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

NEC report

This is the text of my personal report of NEC member to London branches concerning the Development and Organisation Committee on 13 April and the National Executive Council on 14 April.



Development and Organisation Committee



Last Tuesday’s Committee meeting was to deal with Conference business only. Therefore questions which I had wanted to ask about Regional Supervision of Branches, and about recent decisions of the Certification Officer, will await the meeting on 12 May.



First we considered Rule Amendments. We were told that the NEC had fallen foul of a glitch in the new online system for submission of Rule Amendments - and hence one NEC Rule Amendment had not found its way onto the Preliminary Agenda.



The NEC was recommended to oppose a series of Rule Amendments from North Yorkshire Police Branch which sought to relate UNISON subscriptions to basic pay only, rather than to superannuable earnings as at present. I supported the Committee on this point.

I was alone at the Committee in supporting the proposals from the Kirklees and Bolton branches to impose a 24 month time limit on bans from holding office under our disciplinary rules. Other colleagues felt that such a restriction would only make it more likely that panels would expel members facing disciplinary sanction, although there was some support for considering a (longer) maximum period next year. The NEC will oppose these proposals at Conference.

The Committee did not take a view on Lambeth's proposal to introduce disciplinary warnings into Schedule D pending legal advice. Of course the SOC have already admitted that Amendment on to the agenda.


There were only a few motions relevant to D&O, but we had an interesting debate in relation to one - Motion 8 from Worcestershire County instructing the NEC to publish a directory of branch contact details. The officers were clearly unhappy with this and - although we were not being recommended to oppose yesterday - the arguments against were being rehearsed.

However a wide range of Committee members with divergent views were united in our support for the publication of an accurate and up to date Branch Directory which is a useful tool for research in support of bargaining and to refer members to the right place for advice. I hope the Branch Directory will be published before Conference so that the purpose of the motion can be achieved without the need to take up Conference time - however, it might still be wise to prioritise Motion 8 (about which the NEC has still to take a policy position).



NEC meeting



The NEC meeting on Wednesday 14 April was chaired by Angela Lynes, Vice-President, as the President was absent on UNISON business. Angela opened the meeting by announcing the forthcoming retirement (in July) of Bill Gilby, Head of the Executive Office. Bill is a diligent and effective official who handles the administration of the NEC with patience and good humour and will be greatly missed.



The first item of formal business was a report on the absence from the Preliminary Agenda of an NEC Amendment to Rule I.3. (dealing with disciplinary action against members of the British National Party). The Head of the Executive Office was asked to give this report and took personal responsibility for failing to have clicked “submit” in the online Conference system. It was reported that the NEC would appeal to the SOC to include the Rule Amendment on the Final Agenda on the basis that the Amendment had been set up on the online system and that the Minutes of the NEC confirmed that it should have been submitted.



The General Secretary intervened to suggest that NEC members might wish to encourage Regional Convenors to lobby members of the SOC to admit this item on to the Final Agenda for Conference. This is clearly a matter for the SOC.



The NEC went on to consider policy on Motions and proposed Amendments. As ever most motions are supported and I shall note here only those motions from branches in our Region which are not being supported, so that branches are aware of where there may be controversy at Conference (and can take this into account in the prioritisation process).



Motion 10 from Greenwich is opposed on the basis that it requires unnecessary work which can be subsumed within the joint Region/Branch Assessment process.



Motion 22 from Tower Hamlets is opposed unless amended by an NEC amendment which deletes an instruction to put this item on the TUC agenda. The NEC generally opposes Conference motions which seek to instruct the TUC delegation in this way.



Motions 45 (from LFEPA), 46 (from Ealing) and 48 (from our Region) will also all be opposed unless broadly similar NEC amendments are agreed. These seek to modify the approach to working with other trade unions in campaigns to defend the public sector.



Motion 53 from Havering (on joint working the PCS) will be opposed unless an NEC amendment is agreed. The NEC amendment makes some additions of points of detail (which can be used by the mover of the amendment to present it in a positive light) whilst removing reference to work with the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group.



The NEC has not yet taken a policy position on Motion 89 from Tower Hamlets which deals with the victimisation of union activists.



Motions 107 from the Voluntary Organisations Branch and 108 from Hammersmith and Fulham (concerning anti-BNP campaigns) will both be opposed unless NEC amendments are agreed. In both cases the amendments insert reference to “Searchlight” in motions and – in the case of Motion 107 also requires prior consultation with Regions about support for events.



The NEC has not yet taken a policy position on Motion 119 from SOAS Branch on the Equality Act, nor on Motion 121 from Hammersmith and Fulham on “Labour and the Black Community.”



The NEC also considered its position on Rule Amendments, which was largely in line with the report above from the Development and Organisation Committee. A draft of the NEC report to Conference was also considered, and the NEC agreed to prioritise its own motions to Conference as it normally does.



Conference Prioritisation



Branches have an opportunity to express support for motions in the prioritisation process. One consideration which branches may wish to take into account is that motions which are supported by the NEC will, if not taken for debate at Conference be referred to the NEC who can be expected to support them. Where motions have been opposed by the NEC and are not taken at Conference they will be referred to the NEC who will oppose them and they will fall.



Bearing in mind that our Conference is the supreme government of our Union (in accordance with Rule D.1.1) branches may feel that it is particularly important for Conference to take a decision (for or against) motions which the NEC opposes (or may be expected to oppose).



Branches may wish to consider therefore prioritising for debate some of the following (bearing in mind that the Region will prioritise Motion 48);



Motion 53 (Joint Working with the Public and Commercial Services Union);

Motion 89 (Victimisation of Union Activists);

Motion 121 (Labour and the Black Community);

Motion 8 (Publication of National Directory of Branch Details)



I hasten to add that these are personal views only – the important thing is that as many branches as possible respond to the circular from Regional Office about prioritisation, so that the order of business at Conference reflects the priorities of our members (which may not be the same as the priorities of the NEC - or indeed the opinions of any NEC member!)



If any London Branch would like further information about NEC policy on any motions, or the text of any NEC amendments, please let me know.

Conference Amendment deadline Tuesday!

I commented a little while ago when I was pleased to be able to make the new Online Conference System work to the extent of submitting motions and Rule Amendments for the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee (SOC).

Today I succeeded in submitting Amendments agreed by the Branch Committee on Thursday - with thanks to the officer who explained to me that the motion number has to be entered in the format M001 for Motion 1, M112 for Motion 112 and so on (or "R" for Rule Amendments).

In line with a decision of the Branch Committee, one of the Rule Amendments which I have set up on the system I have not yet submitted, as I am canvassing the views of another Branch (as instructed by the Branch Committee). If I don't click the "submit" button by noon on Tuesday the amendment won't be on the Final Agenda (any more than an Amendment which arrived late would have been under the old system).

Obviously the responsibility for ensuring that the decisions of the Branch Committee are implemented lies with the Branch Secretary (just as the implementation of decisions of the Regional Council or Committee would be the responsibility of the Regional Secretary, and the implementation of decisions of the NEC would be the responsibility of the General Secretary). So I make this post as a kindness to regular readers Sid and Doris Joint-Branch-Secretaries.

Don't forget the deadline for Conference Amendments is noon on Tuesday - and you need to allow sufficient time to log on at "myunison" - we cannot expect that SOC will cut corners or bend rules to let items on to the agenda.

Support Jeremy Corbyn

I know some people maybe busy campaigning elsewhere but I think its important during the election to provide support for those who have supported us not just in target seats. I am therefore asking UNISON members from across London and locally to spend a small amount of time campaigning for Jeremy Crobyn. I am sure I don't need to remind people he has always supported UNISON members and been seen on many picket lines and at many a local rallies or campaign throughout London. I am therefore asking people to meet at 11.30 am Saturday 24th April outside Tufnell Park Tube on the Northern Line, Once there we will meet up with Jeremy and then go out campaigning in the local area. Please do your best to attend it is at this time Jeremy needs our support and I hope as UNISON member we can give that support. I am sure after a couple of hours on the street we will meet up in a local drinking establishment to quench our thirst!

Suspended in a Rubber Room?

You haven't inadvertently found the wrong bit of t'intraweb!



The New York Teachers' Union have done a deal to limit the amount of time that teachers can be suspended when facing allegations of misconduct (http://www.uft.org/news/issues/press/city_and_uft_reach_agreement_on_rubber_rooms/).



Whilst I confess that the Grauniad headline on this (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/16/new-york-teacher-rubber-rooms) caught my eye largely for its suggestion of some of the weirder aspects of 24 hour Brixton ("rubber rooms" sound like some aspect of nocturnal clubbing of which I am too old/boring to be aware!), the story itself is nevertheless very relevant to everyday life in the local authority for which I work - and also to many other public service employers.



If we want to eliminate real "waste" from our public services - rather than simply cutting jobs - then a similar clampdown on lengthy suspensions would be a minor step in the right direction. I shall be interested to learn whether the approach taken in New York bears fruit.



And to hear from any readers who have achieved similar things in this country...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Vote Lesser Evil?

Gregor Gall today makes cogent criticisms of the limited political ambition (and effectiveness) of the (leaderships of) the large trade unions in the context of the current General Election (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/unions-election-labour-neoliberalism).

He rightly points out that the big three in particular are essentially pursuing support of Labour as a "lesser evil." Unison's attack on the Tories is a good example (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1831). We appear to rely on unconvincing claims that we have secured implausible commitments from Labour politicians who have spent thirteen years disappointing us - together with more convincing claims about what the Tories will do.

The essence of Gregor's thesis is together, the unions "could have said: "We reject 'the market knows best' where profits come before people", mobilised their members around this, and done so before now. If they had done this, the idea that markets can be regulated to protect the common good would already be part of the popular common sense. And, all the parties would have had to accommodate this."

Gregor points to the PCS "Make Your Vote Count" campaign and RMT support for No2EU and TUSC as exceptions - which they certainly are. I have often heard Mark Serwotka explain that if you only ever support a lesser evil then you always end up with evil. That argument cannot be faulted.

However in a choice right now between a Labour or Tory Government it does make sense to choose the lesser evil - and I think we need to chart a course between the "lesser evil" path and the "plague on all your houses" approach (which is what tacit support for minor left parties amounts to).

Unison's "Million Voices" campaign could potentially have mobilised the sort of effective political pressure for which Gregor Gall calls - and the TUC supported Peoples Charter (having the potential to mobilise across the whole movement) would have been an even better bet. Both have been hamstrung by the fear that through such campaigning we will deliver sticks to beat Labour to those on the left promoting an alternative. This fear compels us to campaigns so vacuous that they cannot be a vehicle for effective mobilisation or influence.

Instead of making the most of the full range of Unison's progressive policies at election time we make the least of them.

We don't have to translate our affiliation to the Labour Party into the subordination of the trade unions to the Labour Party in this way.

We could see our affiliation as a tool to gain influence - but only if we are prepared to be critical even when this may do the Party electoral damage.

If we could have had the spirit and commitment of the campaigns of PCS from a major union affiliated to the Labour Party we might have shifted the Party in Government leftwards in a way which would have defended our members' interests and made the Party more electable.

Just as our members deserve better than the choice between Tories and New Labour, so we all deserve a better choice than that between reluctant but uncritical support for Labour as the "lesser evil" on the one hand and de facto support for marginal political groups on the other.

Which is, now I come to think of it, one of the reasons I'll be voting - after the General Election - for Paul Holmes to be Unison General Secretary.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

NEC report

Today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) commenced with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the non-appearance on the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference of a Rule Amendment agreed for submission by the NEC.

The approach of our General Secretary to the necessary explanation of a matter for which he was accountable to the NEC was noteworthy, as was the foolishness of the suggestion made by one person at the meeting that Regional Convenors should be encouraged to lobby the Standing Orders Committee (SOC). The word "counterproductive" sprang unbidden into my mind.

There were few debates about the NEC policy on Conference motions - I did take arms against a sea of troubles over Motion 53 (on joint work with PCS) in order to oppose the misconcieved hostility expressed to the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG) which was wrongly described as a "political group" support for which would contravene Rule J. This debate was an example of leading NEC members arguing that our SOC had made errors in allowing motions on to the Conference Agenda - another such was over Rule Amendment 33 from Lambeth, so I was pleased today to champion the cause of the SOC, who will face tests of their integrity over coming weeks.

I have to say that I felt sure that someone had recently got into trouble for disrespecting the SOC in just such a way - and turned round to ask my friend Glenn Kelly if I had remembered this correctly - only to find he wasn't there...

I was though particularly pleased to clarify that whilst NEC policy on Motion 51 (from Barnet on "Easy Council") was "support with qualifications" these "qualifications" related only to the fact that much of the action for which the motion calls is already underway - and not to any opposition to point (iv) of the motion (hostility to which had been flagged up by an officer who had written the notes before the meeting).

This means that it is already (as of now) NEC policy (in anticipation of a Conference decision) to "encourage branch representatives to liaise with other branches to share their experiences." To you, dear reader that may sound like common sense, but in our UNISON Region I assure you that this is a very positive and progressive step.

I will contact London branches directly to let them know NEC policy on motions which they have proposed.

Development and Organisation Committee report

In advance of today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) I yesterday attended a meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee.

This was a meeting only to discuss Conference business and so we will have to wait for Wednesday 12 May to consider reports on branches under Regional Supervision and recent Certification Officer rulings (about both of which I had enquired).

The meeting considered recommendations to go to today's NEC for NEC policy on Conference Motions and Rule Amendments relevant to the Committee's remit (so I shall hold off a full report circulated to branches until after today's meeting).

First we considered Rule Amendments. We were told that the NEC had fallen foul of a glitch in the new online system for submission of Rule Amendments - and hence one NEC Rule Amendment had not found its way onto the Preliminary Agenda. The NEC will have to prevail upon the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) to admit the Rule Amendment to the Final Agenda (and to timetable it for debate) if we are to comply with Rule N.3.

I was alone at the Committee in supporting the proposals from the Kirklees and Bolton branches to impose a 24 month time limit on bans from holding office under our disciplinary rules. Other colleagues felt that such a restriction would only make it more likely that panels would expel members facing disciplinary sanction, although there was some support for considering a (longer) maximum period next year.

The Committee did not take a view on Lambeth's proposal to introduce disciplinary warnings into Schedule D pending legal advice. As regular readers Sid and Doris Conference-Anorak will be able to imagine, I was driven to point out that this was a disgraceful slur on the SOC who have admitted the Amendment to the agenda and clearly believe it to be a competent Amendment. It would appear that some readers of this blog at Mabledon Place believe in getting the legal advice you want (and going back and getting it again until it is what you want...)

There were only a few motions relevant to D&O, but we had an interesting debate in relation to one - Motion 8 from Worcestershire County instructing the NEC to publish a directory of branch contact details. The officers were clearly unhappy with this and - although we were not being recommended to oppose yesterday - the arguments against were being rehearsed.

However a wide range of Committee members with divergent views were united in our support for the publication of an accurate and up to date Branch Directory which is a useful tool for research in support of bargaining and to refer members to the right place for advice. I hope the Branch Directory will be published before Conference so that the purpose of the motion can be achieved without the need to take up Conference time - however, it might still be wise to prioritise Motion 8 (as today's NEC will not be taking a position for or against the motion yet and I wouldn't rule out further attempts to avoid publication of a document which is not popular at Head Office).

For Mim

This Tuesday would have been my sister's forty fifth birthday - had she not died as a result of a road accident in her twenty first year.



Those of us who knew and loved Mim know what we have lost - and have been aware of her absence now for quarter of a century. The rest of you can take my word for it that we lost a very great deal.



Mim died just weeks after the end of the Miners' Strike - in the middle of that terrible Tory decade. She had been active, as a student in York, supporting the miners.



Her activism might have gone on to cost her the first class honours degree which she could otherwise easily have obtained the following year.



I am a shadow of the activist she would then have become.



Her coffin travelled through Brighton draped in the banner of the Constituency Labour Party.



At her death Mim left unfinished work on the "Battle of the Lewes Road" - one of the most violent incidents of the 1926 General Strike, when the police attacked peaceful pickets blockading the tram depot in Brighton.



She lived to see similar treatment given to the miners nearly sixty years later.



We can expect more of the same in the next few years as our enemies step up their class war against us.



We will all need to draw courage from the beliefs and memories which inspire us.



I shall draw mine from memories of Mim.





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions and Conference Again...

Having spent yesterday on a demonstration organised by the National Pensioners' Convention, obviously I am thinking about pensions at the moment.

I was complaining recently about the hypocrisy and self-interest of the CBI's attack on public sector pensions - today's Observer underlines the point that the majority of private sector workers now don't have pensions and that the important distinction is not between private and public but between rich and poor.

UNISON National Delegate Conference can take a positive step towards fair pensions in the private sector by supporting Motion 23 at this year's Conference - but first the motion needs to be supported in the prioritisation process.

Anyone who is in a position to put the central idea of Motion 23 as an Amendment to Motion 18 would be providing a belt to go along with prioritisation braces...

We need opposition to cuts on the streets - and in Westminster

Yesterday's well attended demonstration in defence of our public services, called by the National Pensioner's Convention and addressed by a variety of trade union General Secretaries was a timely reminder of the vital questions barely being addressed in the General Election campaign(http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/thousands_to_protest_against_spending_cuts?sid=f8acfb249abf). The popular majority in favour of the defence of public services and the welfare state have no one to advocate for our views amongst the leaderships of the three main parties.

Whether our pleasant stroll in the sunshine yesterday really warrants Nick Clegg's warnings today of "Greek style unrest" in the event of draconian cuts implemented by a Tory Government with a small minority may be questionable(http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/11/tight-election-win-social-chaos-nick-clegg).

Time will tell whether the General Council of the TUC has more in common with the leadership of the Greek or of the Irish labour movements!

Nick Clegg's desire for a hung Parliament in which the parties co-operate is more than self-interested wishful thinking however. A Parliament with an effective opposition would keep open the political space in which popular, extra-Parliamentary opposition could most effectively be mobilised (even if not with Hellenic militancy).

Clegg wants - in effect - a Government of National Unity not just to get his feet under the cabinet table but also in an attempt to head off such opposition.

I was marching yesterday with left candidate for Unison General Secretary Paul Holmes (http://www.paulholmeskirklees.blogspot.com/) and reminded him of his having raised the possibility of a National Government some months ago.

This is not some interesting constitutional question of interest only to the "chattering classes." We had a local example in Lambeth which was - in the early 1990s - widely (if not justifiably) seen as the worst English local authority.

In 1994 the local electorate returned a "hung" Council which went on to operate on the basis of general cooperation between all three parties. The workforce and community had less influence over this "balanced" (non) administration than we have at any time before or since.

In the four years following 1994 we saw a successful attack upon sick pay in the housing neighbourhoods (which took us five years to reverse); the (then) largest privatisation in the history of English local government (creating a doomed "joint venture company" now widely seen to have been a mistake); the privatisation of leisure management (in a way found by an employment tribunal to have broken the law), and; the disastrous privatisation of housing benefits to Capita (reversed after four years).

(On that last point I really should link to my former fellow Branch Secretary - who may also have some views on predictions of "Greek style unrest" on our streets!)(http://www.lawatwork.blogspot.com/)

In the event of a hung Parliament our trade unions need to maximise opposition in Labour ranks to any suggestion of "national unity" as advocated by Clegg - we will have a lot to oppose outside Parliament and will need allies supporting that opposition within the Palace of Westminster.

Sometimes democracy (in a nation as much as in a trade union) requires the presence of opposition - those who would eliminate opposition are enemies of democracy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unite against "national unity"

Paul Holmes, the left candidate in the forthcoming election for Unison General Secretary (http://www.paulholmeskirklees.blogspot.com/) has said of the current General Election that it's one the Labour Party don't think we can win, the Tories don't want to win - and the Liberal Democrats know they can't win.

In this context, Vince Cable's call for a "Treasury of National Unity" should be seen as something far more dangerous than self-promotion by a politician with nowhere further to go beyond the current limelight (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sgPvgVljAc12CN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=377437&tid=120787&cat=Search).

With the leaderships of all three of the main parties - in their different ways - planning devastating cuts in public spending, a hung Parliament or wafer- thin majority could see intense pressure on the opposition (of whatever political hue) to oppose such cuts.

If - and the fact that this is a big "if" is of course the reason Paul is standing for General Secretary - the trade unions can lead and mobilise serious political pressure after the General Election, then this could even bring down a Government which lacked - or lost - a majority in Parliament.

Vince Cable, who as I recall favours "savage cuts," is thinking ahead and trying to wish into existence a consensus of the "political class" to act against the interests of the working class on the model of the National Government of the 1930s.

Such a unity of politicians against the public interest - particularly in the aftermath of the expenses scandal - would be the ideal environment for the further growth of the far right (and would probably sound the death knell for the Labour-union link if our Party were party to it).

What we need - but do not have - is a party of the (centre) left posing a progressive alternative to spending cuts in line with Unison policy. Such a party ought to stand in opposition to attacks on the interests of our class under the banner of "national unity", as the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party - supported by the trade unions - did in the 30s.

We lack this Party in large part because of the weakness of the leadership of our Unions over the past decade - who have failed even to attempt to confront and defeat New Labour in its senescence and have kept at arms length serious initiatives such as the Peoples' Charter.

What we must now do is seek to maximise the number of pro-working class MPs (http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/) and prepare for the mobilisation that will be required when the next Government turns on us.

Unison members should make a note of Saturday 15 May - and come to London for the Annual General Meeting of Unison United Left.

All those who put the interests of our class before those of any party need to organise together across the movement to build resistance to the coming onslaught.

The unity we need is not "national unity" but unity of the working class.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Bosses back Tories shock

I never expected much from the Evening Standard when you had to pay for it - and haven't changed my views since they started scattering copies around tube carriages.



However, today's headline news that the bosses of many major companies are backing the Tories (over opposition to increased national insurance payments) is a truly breathtaking headline.



I expect tomorrow to learn from the Standard of new evidence of papal catholicism and of the arboreal toilet habits of ursine mammals.



There is a criticism to be made of Labour policy on tax and national insurance - but that is that we don't seek to impose sufficiently progressive direct taxation.



For now though, the more the bosses back the Tories the more it makes the point that workers need to back our Party, however dismal it has been in Government.



We do however require union leaders capable of changing Labour - or our members will abandon it and them.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Attacking the public sector - or the working class?

Today attacks are being made which appear to be attacks upon public service workers, their pensions and trade unions, but which are in fact shots fired in a class war.

I am indebted to the comrade who forwarded me the link to the views of the Financial Times that "Britain's public sector is inefficient and needs a dose of market discipline," and that "British employment law is now well-tested and fair." (http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/64838478-40d6-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html?catid=86&SID=ece14050796a2b6446e7c06ec9358f21).

The FT is positively gleeful at the thought a future Government will have to take on the trade unions in order to impose spending cuts, and can rely not only upon the anti-union laws (untouched by New Labour) but also upon privatisation to weaken our unions. We are warned that we cannot expect sympathy from a "de-unionised" public.

The Morning Star also deserves credit for highlighting the dangerous plans from the Confederation of British Industry to undermine public service pension provision (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/88806). Someone called John Cridland who is in charge of this self-interested club of employers says that final-salary pension schemes are "history" and cannot be afforded.

Leaving aside the observation that most public service workers (who actually do something useful with our working lives rather than act as a mouthpiece for wealth and privilege) would happily swap our salary and pension with Mr Cridland, what is ominous is that the CBI are coming out with plans detailing exactly how to undermine and water down public service pensions(http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/06/cbi-public-sector-pensions-reform).

Critically, the CBI want the public sector to follow the private sector down the road from "defined benefit" pensions (where you know what you'll be getting) to "defined contribution" pensions (where you don't)(http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/d1c3c285facecb5a802576f6002fd3c8?OpenDocument).

Since I want a pension for security in old age I will fight to hold on to the principle and practice of defined benefits.

If we want to stand a chance we need not only to respond vigorously to the lies of those attacking our (far from) "gold-plated" public sector pensions. We need not only to prepare for unity amongst public service unions to defend these pensions.

We need also to see that this is not about public sector -v- private sector. This is about working class -v- ruling class (or, to put it in more everyday language perhaps, people -v- profit).

The CBI want to level down public sector pensions not just to limit future tax liabilities but to shut off any debate about better pension provision in the private sector.

The FT celebrate the weakness even of the public sector unions not just because they want to see spending cuts, but because they never want to see private sector trade unionism restored to strength.

Private sector workers depend upon the "social wage" of public service provision and stand to gain nothing from attacks on the pay or pensions of those who provide such services.

It is in the interests of the working class not just that these attacks upon public services and public service workers should be resisted - but also that we should campaign, as trade unionists, to promote the interests of private sector workers - for example by extending access to viable defined benefit pension schemes such as the (funded) Local Government Pension schemes.

Unison members can do a little bit by prioritising for debate at our Conference Motion 23 on precisely this topic. We need to give much more thought though about how to build unity between public and private sector workers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Regional supervision of UNISON Branches

In a shocking development today, 1 April, all UNISON Branches in Greater London believed to be led by leftwingers, starting with the Lambeth local government branch, are to be placed under Regional supervision.

Nick Venedi, until recently joint Branch Secretary in Lambeth is to play a key role, alongside newly appointed organiser Avril Poisson.

This development has already been welcomed by the "UNISON Active" blog, and it is understood that Regional Finance Convenor, John Gray will comment further shortly.

All members in affected branches will be contacted before noon on Thursday April 1st.

Update on Monday - morning - I have had text confirmation of this development from John Burgess in Barnet!

It's now past noon so April Fool's Day is over for another year. I am sincerely flattered but also impressed by the local employer's contribution (to consult on "Dress Up Mondays") which simply outclassed my attempt to call strike action relying upon the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (Exceptions in respect of All Fools’ Day) Regulations to avoid the need for a ballot...

Palestine - think globally act locally

I missed out on yesterday's lunchtime street stall run jointly by my local UNISON branch and the local branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign(PSC) but understand that it went well.

Campaign materials jointly produced between the PSC and the TUC are now available online at www.palestinecampaign.org/ban-settlement-goods and will shortly be circulated to UNISON branches.

It is time to step up campaigning for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the aggression of the Zionist regime and the unjust occupation of Palestine. Our trade union movement has a clear pro-Palestinian policy and, having won the vote at the TUC, we need to implement the policy on the ground.