Pensions - time for leadership

Dave Prentis makes some sound and important points on the front page of the UNISON website (http://www.unison.org.uk/) just now.

I'll quote him verbatim;

" This week, news emerged that the value of public sector workers' pensions has dropped by up to 25%. This is due in part to the government's decision to use the CPI rather than the RPI to calculate pension increases.
This means the cost of providing public sector pensions has already fallen and workers are losing out when they retire. Further attempts to cut pensions for social workers, teaching assistants and nurses would be unjustified.
It's time the government turned its attention instead to the private sector, where two thirds of companies do not pay a penny towards their workers' pensions – leaving taxpayers with a multibillion pound means-tested benefits bill."

I agree completely that further attacks on public service pensions would be unjustified. However - following the Comprehensive Spending Review - we know at least one attack (a three per cent increase in contributions) is already on the way. We can also reasonably anticipate further attacks from the final Hutton report (which Dave doubtless hopes to influence with his reasoned and well founded observations - and to which UNISON is making submissions).

Also however, as unjustified as further attacks on our pensions will be, the attack made in June by changing the basis of uprating from RPI to CPI is and remains a disgrace.

In July when the TUC began to spell out the scale of this theft from our pensions I observed that "We may not be ready for a national strike ballot next week or next month, but we need to be declaring disputes, making preparations and mobilising members." (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/07/osborne-has-cut-our-pensions-shall-we.html).

I went on (and on and on as I do);
"We shouldn't swallow this first Coalition attack upon our pensions just so we can use its effects to show that our pensions, having become less generous, are more "affordable." What is "affordable" is always a political and never an economic choice.
The alternative approach is that set out by Dave Prentis in his speech as General Secretary to UNISON National Delegate Conference - national strike action to defend public service pensions.
We have a lot of work to do to persuade and mobilise our members.
Will we get on with it?"

I regret that the emerging response to the proposals from the National Union of Teachers (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/11/teaching-us-how-to-protect-our-pensions.html) for a strike ballot for action over pensions in the Spring Term (reflected in comments on an earlier post - http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/11/follow-leaders.html) suggest that the answer to the question I posed on 8 July is "not yet" or at least "not yet sufficiently".

Without the unifying framework of national action we are destined to months and years of guerilla action against particular the cuts.

We will win some battles at a local level. Some jobs and some services will be rescued in the future as they have been in the past.

However, we cannot defeat a national Government with purely local campaigns. The attack on pensions provides an opportunity for us to mobilise nationally.

This is an opportunity that must be seized by our national officers. At a local level our activists are inevitably prioritising local campaigns.

The impact of those local campaigns can be magnified by a national intervention which goes beyond exhorting the Government to be reasonable and starts exhorting our members to be militant.

If our members are not yet motivated to fight on pensions this is at least in part because we have been too slow to promote this issue over the past five months.

It is not too late to put this right. The NUT are showing the way.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A leader showing wisdom

President of the National Union of Students Aaron Porter has to rise in anyone's estimation for apologising for tardy support for student occupations against fees and cuts and pledging more forthright support in future (http://m.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/28/student-leader-apologises-over-dithering?cat=education&type=article).



The particular pressure on Lib Dem MPs who made a clear and unequivocal pledge combines with the Parliamentary arithmetic to create the possibility of a significant defeat for the Coalition. Unity in the campaign to impose this pressure is important since it is unity in favour of urgent action.



A united student movement is in a better position swiftly to mobilise its faster moving forces en masse than is the TUC. However the trade unions can and must turn supportive words (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=6426) into deeds.



I hope that now there is no question that the NUS is supporting all nonviolent action the unions at every level will encourage our members to support the students in every way possible.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Resistance is fertile

The spirit of the many thousands of young people who have today protested against the ConDems is an inspiration and a challenge to the organised working class.



I was moved at lunchtime today by the spontaneous enthusiasm of students at Lambeth College to sign up to a petition against the truly savage cut that will take away the EMA.



That a Cabinet with a majority of millionaires can take from teenagers from low income households the thirty quid a week that helps them stay in education tells you more than you ever wanted to know about the nature of this hideous Coalition.



We must of course build towards a million strong demonstration on 26 March, but in the mean time we must learn from the example of the young people who have turned anger into action up and down the country.



This means we must reject the counsel of those who would "march in March and not before" - we must lobby before breakfast, protest before lunch, organise before tea and agitate before supper. The Welfare State our grandparents bequeathed us is at risk - and if we wish to be able to look our grandchildren in their eyes we must now turn every effort to its defence.



I have just left a freezing Parliament Square where I have watched the Met Police unlawfully kettling two thousand mostly young people in Whitehall. I saw police officers prevent a Member of Parliament from going down Whitehall to see what was going on.



Some damage may have been done in Central London - but that is nothing to the damage being done to our public services. If they will kettle kids to try to contain our protests we need to raise the temperature and bring things to the boil.



Respect is due to the trade unionists kettled in there with them, who include the General Secretary of the CWU and the Assistant Branch Secretaries of Lambeth UNISON.



Kettles can only be so big. There are so many of us. We have the power to defeat the Government. We need our leaders to rise to this challenge. We also need warmer coats and more layers...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Follow the leaders?

In the spirit of supporting other trade union bloggers when they get blogging right - by posting signed rather than anonymous articles - I'll link to a report of the UNISON Local Government SGE meeting over at UNISON Active (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2010/11/local-government-sge-policy-seminar-18.html).

That said, I'm disappointed at the tone of the report, and by what it tells us about thinking in some quarters about the role of trade union leadership in relation to our current and coming struggles.

Our rapporteur (who will in my mind I fear always be "the other" Glenn)(and for whose bid for the NEC a bell tolled most unfortunately) is critical of those who tried and failed to commit the SGE to supporting the sensible (and unanimous) decision of the Executive of the National Union of Teachers to prepare to ballot for strike action in defence of pensions (thereby implementing the very policy to which our General Secretary committed UNISON at our Conference in June).

I will pass by the implicitly perjorative references in the report to the "minority" stautus of those who lose a vote - although any union rep who is not sufficiently confident to be the one person in the room who is right (whilst respecting the right of the majority to be wrong) lacks the strength we will need from our leaders over coming years.

What troubles me more is the view, presented strongly in this report, that the role of a leader is to reflect the views of members (rather like a mirror).

Therefore if we know today that - were they asked today - the majority of our members would not jump at the chance of joining the NUT on strike to defend our pensions in the Spring Term, it follows that we must argue against any such proposal (even whilst agonising about how hard it is to be "democratic" and reflect the views of members when these are less forthright than our own).

I fail to see what is "leadership" in that approach. It sounds and feels a lot more like a, fairly passive "followership".

Now clearly, if you want to lead, you cannot do so by being so far ahead of the people you are leading that they can't see you. This is my worry about - for example - calls for a General Strike which we know isn't going to happen any time soon (however much we may wish otherwise).

However, if you aspire to leadership you do need to be a step or two (rather than ten) in front of the people you are hoping to lead - and that means that it is certainly not your role simply to reflect members' opinions back at them.

Rather it is the role of a union leader (from a shop steward all the way down to General Secretary) to analyse the interests of the members you represent, formulate a strategy to advance those interest and then advocate that strategy to those members.

You may or may not persuade members that your assessment of their interests and of the action they should therefore take is correct, but at least by doing so you will be discharging your duty as a leader.

In his Conference speech in June, Dave Prentis correctly identified the issue of pensions as one on which we could take national action to inflict a defeat upon the Government. He rightly urged us to take national action in our own interests.

It's a shame that Dave's supporters are now backing away from our General Secretary's accurate analysis.

What we need now is leadership which is less like a mirror and more like a beacon.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Too hot in the kitchen?

I have taken the unusual step of deleting a blog post, having been asked to do so by a UNISON colleague.

It is never my intention to cause personal offence with posts on this blog.

It is my intention to make robust - sometimes even rude - political criticism.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

I make no secret of my view that our movement is often let down by its leadership. If individuals who are part of that leadership don't like to hear that view expressed they need to grow tougher skin.

It does not bring UNISON into disrepute for our disagreements to be aired in public. On the contrary it is the hallmark of a democratic member-led trade union that we should be proud of robust debate.

I have read criticisms of myself online (some of them even unjustified) which have far exceeded anything I may say here. I think that is pretty much the price of being outspoken.

Anyone who had trouble coping with occasionally intemperate online criticism would certainly struggle to confront the ConDems...

Snouts in the trough?

I have just seen my old friend Clive Smith, now our GMB Regional Organiser, on Newsnight condemning the failing ALMO in Lambeth ("Lambeth Living") for paying consultants sums of up to (and more than!) four thousand pounds a week.

I'm all for us putting pressure on public employers not to throw money at people earning more than anyone needs (who needs more than, say £50,000 a year? What would you do with it?) but of course the real disgrace is the profligacy of the private sector.

Still, I hope that Lambeth Council will take action to stop managers in their decrepit ALMO from wasting public money on overpaid private consultants.

Dot to dot class war

Join the dots.



Thousands of people in disadvantaged areas are to be left in near derelict streets as the Government stops a major regeneration project in its tracks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/18/pathfinder-housing-renewal-scrapped).



Increases in tuition fees will deter poorer students from entering higher education (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/18/ipsos-mori-poll-tuition-fees-cuts).



The Government refuse to enact a duty to assess the socio-economic impact of public policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk//commentisfree/2010/nov/17/theresa-may-scraps-equality-for-fairness?mobile-redirect=false).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Regional Local Government Executive Committee Report

Owing to the arrangement of trade union meetings using a variant of a calendar found inscribed on an Aztec monument, the Regional Local Government Executive, this morning, followed hot on the heels of the Regional Committee yesterday.



The meeting commenced with a minute's silence in memory of former member, Chris Morey, whose untimely death yesterday has robbed us of the trade union side expert on many questions.



Regional Head of Local Government, Vicky Easton, ran through a verbal briefing on Parts Two and Three of the Green Book, their status and implications for employers seeking to vary our conditions of service. She repeated the good news shared yesterday, that Croydon have backed off from an attack on the (Part Two) sick pay scheme and - later in the meeting - confirmed that Greenwich have an indicative ballot on the suspension of incremental progression, in support of which - I was assured - meetings are being held with members.



The meeting agreed a budget bid for next year which incorporated the vital proposals from the recent planning meeting for regular briefing sessions for local government branches across London - a more positive take on the idea that this is not "business as usual" than exemplified by an ill-judged email from Regional Office encouraging a reduction in "routine" meetings ("so we can go back to our branches and get on with our work").



The meeting heard about plans to co-ordinate campaigning around library services, and about current industrial action ballots, as well as receiving the latest figures on density of UNISON membership across London Boroughs.



I won't take the time for a full report now - but will say that this was a constructive meeting of activists from a number of branches - we need to share and help across branch boundaries now more than ever.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Regional Committee report

Today's meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Committee, which I had to leave after giving my NEC Report to get back to the Branch, was overshadowed for me by terrible news from Ealing.

Chris Morey, the long standing UNISON Branch Secretary who had only recently retired, has died. Chris was invariably good company as well as being an exemplary trade unionist and it seemed strangely and sadly appropriate to learn of his passing at a Regional event, for he was the source of knowledge about Provincial level agreements in London local government.

The Regional Committee sent condolences to Chris's family and to the Ealing branch before returning, as we had to, to the issues before us.

The main topic of discussion was our response to the ConDem attacks. The Regional Secretary gave an overview of these attacks and the response of our movement which was supplemented by further reports from others.

We heard the good news that Croydon Council are backing away from their intention to attack nationally agreed sick pay. This is a tribute to the work of the Croydon branch and a testament to the way in which, even in the worst of circumstances, concessions can be won by determined struggle.

Our job, locally, Regionally and nationally, must be to wage the most determined and effective struggle possible in order to secure the maximum concessions, with the clear goal in mind of defeating every cut and every attack (and of bringing down this Government at the earliest opportunity).

Sadly, one Regional Council officer struck a slightly jaundiced note, bemoaning the fact that we had lost the General Election (as if this meant we should accept Government policy?) he was worried about our ability to mobilise our members. A fellow NEC member wondered whether members would be prepared to give up a Saturday to demonstrate.

These slightly disappointing contributions (which are hardly in the spirit of UNISON's approach) were effectively countered by others present. Phoebe Watkins, Camden local Government, pointed to the success of the Camden Trades Council demonstration on 20 October. Len Hockey, Waltham Forest Health, commended the mobilisation initiated by the RMT Union on Saturday 23 October.
Andrew Berry, Islington local government, reported from the STUC Demonstration in Edinburgh on 23 October.

The marvellous NUS/UCU demonstration last week was also given as an example of the possibility of mobilising opposition to this Government.

In summing up, the Regional Secretary responded positively to these more positive contributions - and urged branches to share information about campaigning activities so that the Region could publicise them.

I hope branches campaigning actively against Government policies will take the Regional Secretary up on this. As we build up to the TUC demonstration on 26 March (and beyond) we should not make the mistake of those who would "march in March and not before" - to mobilise a million then we must first mobilise hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands in local and Regional and national activities.

We also need to think seriously about the approach of the NUT Executive on pensions, which may offer us a chance to inflict a major defeat upon this Government.

We do now need leaders, at every level, who are prepared for this fight. Pessimism of the intellect is always reasonable, but pessimism of the will would be inexcusable.

We could also do with a unifying approach - if an agreement could be reached to reduce both the quorum for and the frequency of our Regional Council (so that we had three meetings a year attended by at least a quarter of registered delegates, rather than failing three out of four times a year to secure attendance by a third of registered delegates) that might suggest we were focused on what now needs to be done.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Appointment of Assistant General Secretary

All UNISON email users received, in the past hour or so, an email message sent on behalf of Bob Abberley, Assistant General Secretary, as follows;



"As the senior officer conducting the interviews held on 11th and 12th November, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Liz Snape, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, as AGS Communications, Campaigns and Policy.



This post carries responsibility for the strategic development and implementation of UNISON's campaigning strategy, policy development and implementation strategy, external communications strategy, including media and press, and has overall responsibility for the general and affiliated political funds. 



This appointment is the second made to the new senior management structure, and interviews for the other three AGS posts will be held over the next two weeks.



Once the appointment process is complete the General Secretary will consult with the appointees and confirm the commencement date of the new structure. 



Bob Abberley"



Though I personally believe that such important leadership roles should be elected rather than appointed, all UNISON members will I am sure wish Liz well in this challenging role.



True Rule Book anoraks may wonder about the implications both of these tidings and of the identity of their bearer for UNISON Rule E.4.2...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Service Group seats on the NEC

I should start this post with a warm welcome to newly elected NEC members. I am particularly pleased to see that Max Watson will be one or the representatives of our members in Higher Education.

Some members have asked me whether or not elected members of Service Group Executives are eligible to contest the seats on our NEC which represent the Service Groups.

I am afraid that it is clear that elected members of Service Group Executives are not eligible to contest Service Group seats on the NEC. This arises from the NEC interpretation of the Rule Amendment agreed in 2008.

This is an extract from the minutes of the Development and Organisation Committee meeting of 7 October 2008;

· Item 2.1
New Rule D.3.5.8: Eligibility to hold office on a Service Group Executive
A report was circulated which addressed the implementation of new rule D 3.5.8. It made recommendations on transitional arrangements to avoid detriment to members holding office arising from elections which were held before 2008 National Delegate Conference. Also, it identified restrictions on eligibility for contesting NEC service group representative seats. Accordingly, it was agreed to recommend to the NEC that it makes the following ruling under Rule D 2.9 regarding transition arrangements for the implementation of Rule D 3.5.8:

“This NEC agrees to make a ruling under Rule D 2.9 powers regarding interpretation of the rules with regard to the implementation of new Rule
D 3.5.8.
In the 2009 elections for the National Executive Council [term of office from June 2009 to June 2011] current members of service group executives [for the 2008 to 2010 term of office] should be eligible to contest the National Executive Council service group representative seats in the 2009 elections. This is a transitional measure for the 2009 National Executive Council elections only.
Thereafter, NEC members who hold a seat as service group representative on the National Executive Council will not be eligible to stand for any other seat on a service group executive and, members of service group executives [with the exception of NEC service group representative seat holders] will not be eligible to stand as a service group representative on the National Executive Council.”

I had tried to amend this so that SGE members could stand for SG NEC seats but without success, and reported this on my blog (and in my report to branches) as follows;

“It has been agreed that from 2011, SGE members who wish to seek election to the Service Group seat on the NEC will need to stand down from the SGE before they are eligible to be nominated to the NEC. I proposed an amendment to this recommendation without success.”

I haven't changed my mind on this in the past two years and still think we were wrong. However, the position is very clear.

Personal report of the D&O Committee 8 November

The Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee of the NEC met on 8 November.

This is a personal report I have sent today to London branches. It is not an official document nor is it intended to be a comprehensive report of everything which was discussed. I am always happy to respond to questions about reports, or to attend meetings of branches or Branch Committees (subject to notice and availability). You can contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk or on 07957505571.

Apologies to diligent readers of this blog who will notice some similarity between aspects of this report and some earlier posts...

Recruitment

This meeting commenced with a report on recruitment, which repeated the good news, from the October NEC, that we are on track to exceed our target of 1.75% membership growth.

In Greater London, where our target was only 0.5% (because we have the highest turnover rate of any Region) we are currently heading for 2.4% annual growth in 2010.

Learning and Organising

The Committee received a report updating NEC member on training activity. In the year to 30 September, 3,755 new shop stewards were appointed nationally and 2,634 stewards completed induction training.

In order to protect the availability of public funding for shop stewards’ training the previous three day introductory course and two day “handling grievances and disciplinaries” course have been brought together into a new Organising Stewards course.

From September 2011 it is likely that public funding for trade union training will be further restricted. As an indicative figure, should UNISON have to meet the current costs of the 1,728 reps who attended ten day TUC courses in 2009 this could cost us approximately £375,000. The Committee will be considering this further.

RMS Update

The Committee received a regular update on progress with the development of the RMS. The bulk email facility for which many branches are waiting will now be piloted by the end of the year with a view to full rollout early in 2011.

Changes are also being made to the facility for members to amend their details online on the website. This will shortly be piloted to Branch Secretaries.

Enhancements are also planned to enable the RMS better to describe members’ job descriptions which will assist the Union when balloting members for action.

Communications Workshop on New Structures

The Committee received a report of a workshop which had taken place in July to discuss improving communications with UNISON members in the context of our structure of sectors and Service Groups.

If any branch wants a copy of the report please get in touch.

National Delegate Conference – Representation and Participation

The Committee was presented with an analysis of attendance at last year’s National Delegate Conference which suggested a declining proportion of delegates are low paid and part time workers.

The Committee agreed that the same scheme of representation for branch delegations will apply at National Delegate Conference 2011 as applied this year, with one amendment that Regional Committees upholding appeals from branches not sending a young delegate should first of all consult their Regional Young Members’ Forum.

Branches under Regional Supervision

The D&O Committee receives regular reports on branches under Regional Supervision.

In Greater London this includes the Bromley, Greenwich and Newham Branches. Bromley and Greenwich were taken into Regional Supervision in the spring, following the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings taken against their former Branch Secretaries. The Tenant Services Authority branch, which was under Regional Supervision, has been closed as the employer has been closed by the Coalition Government.

In relation to Newham branch, which has been in administration rather longer, the Chair gave the Committee news which was somewhat more reassuring than the written report from the Region which was before the Committee.

Whilst the Regional report did not offer any immediate prospect of restoration of normality, the Chair made clear that it was the expectation that the Branch would leave regional supervision soon and would hold an AGM in the normal way in the New Year.

I will continue to press for the restoration of all branches in the Region to normal control by their own members in accordance with our Rule Book. If members in any of the branches concerned would like more information please get in touch.

Certification Officer cases

The Committee received a report of two recent cases involving UNISON heard by the Certification Officer, one of which (Searle –v- UNISON) was within our Region.

In this case the only declarations which the Certification Officer made were in respect of issues relating to the annual election of shop stewards where the Union had already conceded error and taken steps to put things right.

National Executive Council election procedures

The Committee endorsed revised election procedures for the forthcoming biennial elections to our NEC. The nominations will open on 11 January and close on 18 February. Voting will run from 11 April to 13 May. Results will be announced on 7 June. The new NEC will take office at the close of June's National Delegate Conference.

For the first time the regulations define as a candidate someone who has submitted their candidate's form. This should make it easier for branches who want to interview candidates (or their representatives) before deciding on a nomination.

A couple of other changes show us learning from experience. The regulations now make clear that a candidate must retain full membership throughout the entire election period in order to retain eligibility. The regulations also alert branches of the need - if holding a social event to which one candidate is invited - to be sure to invite other candidates.

Interpretation of Rule

The Committee agreed to interpret UNISON’s Rules to clarify that NEC members sitting on Service Group Executives do have a vote in the election for Chair of the Service Group (albeit they are not eligible to be a candidate).

Scheme for the Establishment and Restructuring of Branches

The Committee endorsed a revised version of the scheme governing the establishment and restructuring of UNISON Branches.

Whereas ten years or more ago questions were frequently raised about branches like Bromley, which happily organised members in more than one Service Group, the new guidelines turn our historic practice on its head to positively welcome cross service-group branches (which have become an inevitability since the creation of the Community Service Group).
Indeed one of the models for the future is of a "Community" branch, in which all members working in public service provision in a town or city, whether in local government, health, education or the voluntary sector, might be members of the same branch, with separate Committees for its members in each service group.

There are already examples of branches which are, as a matter of practical necessity, a world away from the model of a "lead employer branch" which was the basis on which branches from our "former partner unions" (COHSE, NALGO and NUPE) were merged fourteen years ago.

That model was then already anachronistic to some extent given the extent of privatisation under the Tories. Almost all UNISON branches are multi-employer branches and have been since they were created. Hundreds of our branches already now organise members across more than one Service Group and it makes sense that this option is not ruled out in branch restructurings.

However the best feature of the revised guidance is that it stresses that there a range of models and does not try to impose a "one size fits all" branch structure. I did express reservations about how the guidelines deal with the (hopefully exceptional) circumstances in which there is no clear consensus about how to restructure a branch (or branches).

I would sooner have seen a more prescriptive approach to member decisionmaking in those circumstances (a mandatory ballot). In practice I hope that common sense and democracy would prevail should disagreements arise.

If any branch would like a copy of the guidelines endorsed by the Committee, please get in touch.

Support the students

Having heard from a student speaker at today's meeting of UNISON activists in London I have added my name to the following statement;



We need unity to break the Con-Dems' attacks



Stand with the protesters against victimisation



Wednesday's national NUS/UCU 50,000-strong national demonstration was a magnificent show of strength against the Con-Dems' savage attacks on education.



The Tories want to make swingeing cuts, introduce £9,000 tuition fees and cut EMA.



These attacks will close the doors to higher education and further education for a generation of young people.



During the demonstration over 5,000 students showed their determination to defend the future of education by occupying the Tory party HQ and its courtyards for several hours.



The mood was good-spirited, with chants, singing and flares.



Yet at least 32 people have now been arrested, and the police and media appear to be launching a witch-hunt condemning peaceful protesters as "criminals" and violent.



A great deal is being made of a few windows smashed during the protest, but the real vandals are those waging a war on our education system.



We reject any attempt to characterise the Millbank protest as small, "extremist" or unrepresentative of our movement.



We celebrate the fact that thousands of students were willing to send a message to the Tories that we will fight to win.



Occupations are a long established tradition in the student movement that should be defended. It is this kind of action in France and Greece that has been an inspiration to many workers and students in Britain faced with such a huge assault on jobs, benefits, housing and the public sector.



We stand with the protesters, and anyone who is victimised as a result of the protest.



I encourage all readers to add their names to this statement by email to teneleventen@gmail.com.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The money to improve your bathroom was spent bailing out the banks...

Yesterday's proposals for the allocation of (greatly reduced) funding to improve social housing which doesn't meet a standard of decency are noteworthy primarily for just how little a nation that could find billions to bail out bankers is prepared to find to combat squalor - just £260 Million nationally in the next financial year (http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/public/documents/DH-Backlog-Funding-for-Council-Landlords111110.pdf).

Lib Dems have once again excelled themselves in resurrecting another of the five giants (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report) identified by one of their most illustrious predecessors (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge?wasRedirected=true).

However, for those of us dealing still with Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) there is a tiny silver lining.

ALMOs were an unlovely and unloved device used by New Labour's neoliberals in pursuit of their ideological obsession with the break up of democratically accountable local authorities.

Additional funding to improve Council housing would not - we were told at the time - be made available to "traditionally managed" Council Housing and so - up and down the country - tenants and Councillors were cajoled into accepting an ALMO as the "least worst" option to secure needed improvements in the state of the housing stock.

There will now be a single allocation process for all Council landlords to bid for the available pittance. There is therefore now no advantage in having an ALMO over and above a traditional housing department when it comes to accessing what little funding will be available.

There is therefore no longer a rationale for the duplication at senior levels - nor of expenditure on the governance costs - which arise from having an ALMO.

We face a hard fight to defend and improve public and social housing under the ConDems. Alliances between housing workers and tenants and residents will be vital.

ALMOs aren't likely to help and the sooner they are put out of our misery and the management of housing stock returned to local authorities the better.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Teaching us how to protect our pensions?

Not-quite-breaking news from the NUT (http://electmartin1.blogspot.com/2010/11/nut-to-ballot-for-action-to-defend.html) that their Executive has set out plans for a campaign in defence of pensions.

The NUT Executive recognise that the combined impact of the proposals of the Hutton Commission' the decision to switch the indexation of pension benefits from RPI to CPI and the inclusion in the Comprehensive Spending Review of an assumption that public sector workers will pay 3% more in pension contributions amount to "a much bigger threat to our pensions than the proposals we fought in 2005" - as a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme I remember our fight going on into strike action in 2006 and a Special Service Group Conference in 2007 - but the point being made by the NUT is essentially sound.

What they sensibly now propose to do is to produce and distribute campaign materials for use with members and the public, to plan meetings, rallies and lobbying activities - and to ballot for strike action in the Spring Term.

Their Executive has also instructed their General Secretary to approach other unions with a view to coordinated action.

How should UNISON respond to such an approach? We already know the views of our General Secretary!

At UNISON Conference five months ago, Dave Prentis touched on pensions in his keynote speech (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B5115.pdf). Dave said;

" if we find ourselves faced with a concerted attack on our pensions, and if Nick Clegg, who claimed expenses for a biscuit tin, comes for our pensions, as he boasted only yesterday, then we will ballot for national industrial action."

He rightly continued;

"If this government picks a fight with us, then we will be ready. And if this government picks a fight we will be fierce defenders of our members, and the services they deliver, the next four years will test us all. Test our resolve. Test our nerve. But we will pass the test. The world has changed - new worries, new fears. And our members look to us to lead. This is no time to hang our heads. It is time to stand tall. Proud, confident, bold. We know what we stand for. We know who we are. The union who will stand in the way. The union who will fight 'til the end. This is the time to lift our hearts and raise our flag. A brand new chapter. Strong, determined, united."

UNISON is a member-led union and our General Secretary cannot decide when or why we take strike action - but his views will rightly carry weight with decision makers.

There is a compelling case for coordinated national action to defend our pensions.

This is an issue on which our members can be mobilised - as we cannot (yet) mobilise them against the pay freeze.

This is an issue about which unifying national trade disputes can be declared - as they cannot against cuts and redundancies implemented locally by particular employers.

This is an issue which hits all our members - not just those whose jobs may currently be at risk.

This is an issue on which we can win - and force back the ConDems in a significant national dispute.

Such a victory would strengthen our hand in each local dispute about cuts. It would encourage all trade unionists and working people to believe that this Government can be forced back. It would be a victory for all those millions under attack by the Government of millionaires.

For those wishing to pursue this matter in UNISON's Greater London Region I am tempted to point out that this might be a legitimate topic for an Emergency Motion to our December Regional Council (but I wouldn't want to incur the wrath of a fellow blogger who knows the need for a sedate timetable in the struggle - http://grayee.blogspot.com/2010/11/march-in-march-not-before.html).

On second thoughts, I suggest UNISON activists raise this question in every appropriate forum!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Brilliant students

50,000 demonstrators defending the rights and interests of future students today set a wonderful example to the trade union movement.



Mainstream media coverage seems a bit carried away with events at Millbank (unfortunately assisted by some clueless careerist of a student politician eager to deplore violence when he should have had the gumption to stick to the message of the demo).



Since 50,000 peaceful marchers attract less media attention than a far smaller number smashing windows it's the media's priorities which help to drive people towards spectacular action.



Whilst I'd sooner it was explicitly nonviolent direct action, the correct answer to the question "do you condemn the violence?" is to condemn the Government.



The real story of today is the militant selflessness and justified anger of tens of thousands of young people. The rest of us should learn from this marvellous example.



I am all for building towards the TUC demonstration in March but - as a local government worker anticipating deep cuts and many thousands of redundancies before then - I think we shouldn't wait to March to march (so to speak).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Branching out?

Monday's meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee considered revised guidelines for the restructuring of UNISON branches, which suggest that in future we may have a more diverse and flexible branch structure.

Whereas ten years or more ago questions were frequently raised about branches like Bromley, which happily organised members in more than one Service Group, the new guidelines turn our historic practice on its head to positively welcome cross service-group branches (which have become an inevitability since the creation of the Community Service Group).

Indeed, in a good example of how, once you start using a fluffy word that can mean anything you'll never break the habit, one of the models for the future is of a "Community" branch, in which all members working in public service provision in a town or city, whether in local government, health, education or the voluntary sector, might be members of the same branch, with separate Committees for its members in each service group.

There are already examples of branches which are, as a matter of practical necessity, a world away from the model of a "lead employer branch" which was the basis on which branches from our "former partner unions" (COHSE, NALGO and NUPE) were merged fourteen years ago.

That model was then already anachronistic to some extent given the extent of privatisation under the Tories. Almost all UNISON branches are multi-employer branches and have been since they were created.

Hundreds of our branches already now organise members across more than one Service Group and it makes sense that this option is not ruled out in branch restructurings. However the best feature of the revised guidance is that it stresses that there a range of models and does not try to impose a "one size fits all" branch structure.

Whether this echoes Khruschev's attempts at decentralisation in the Soviet Union in the late 1950s I wouldn't like to say - but I do have reservations about how the guidelines deal with the (hopefully exceptional) circumstances in which there is no clear consensus about how to restructure a branch (or branches).

I would sooner have seen a more prescriptive approach to member decisionmaking in those circumstances (a mandatory ballot). In practice I hope that common sense and democracy would prevail should disagreements arise.

Our first priority must be to resist the gathering wave of ConDem attacks upon our members, but lay activists thinking about the future of our union need also to pay attention to sometimes obscure discussions such as this.

Trade union democracy is not a luxury and a little knowledge about the challenges facing Khruschev is always handy in our movement.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

This is not business as usual

I have had to miss important local meetings to attend a Regional planning meeting for local government branches this morning.



Whilst it is unfortunate that only a minority of local government branches were able to attend this was nevertheless a useful opportunity for representatives of branches across London to share information, experiences and ideas.



Branch activists need to transcend localism and engage with wider co-ordination in the fight to defend our public services - and we need our Regional structures to facilitate this coordination. Branch activists can and must help each other over the coming months and years. The Region must help us to do so.



The ideas thrashed out this morning need to be considered formally by the Regional Local Government next week - and those with budgetary implications will need agreement from the Regional Finance Team and ultimately the Regional Council.



If ever there was a time to spend some of the reserves in the Regional lay budget this is the time - and the modest ideas considered today for frequent and regular co-ordinating meetings drawing in representatives of local government branches across London certainly warrant the commitment of necessary expenditure.



If there was a theme to today's meeting it was that we will not be doing "business as usual" any time soon.



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Branches under regional supervision - for how much longer?

Yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee considered, as it regularly does, a report on the small number of UNISON Branches under "Regional Supervision".



There are circumstances in which branches fail to function in accordance with UNISON Rules and in some of these the Committee Chair, on behalf of the NEC, authorises the Regional Secretary to take over the running of the branch.



In Greater London three local authority branches - in Bromley, Greenwich and Newham are being administered in this way.



I have previously made clear my reservations about the circumstances in which the Bromley and Greenwich branches were removed from the democratic control of their members this spring (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/03/unisons-suburban-sigurimi.html).



In relation to Newham branch, which has been in administration rather longer, the Chair gave the Committee news which was somewhat more reassuring than the written report from the Region which was before the Committee.



Whilst the Regional report did not offer any immediate prospect of restoration of normality, the Chair made clear that it was the expectation that the Branch would leave regional supervision soon and would hold an AGM in the normal way in the New Year.



Given the scale of the challenges now faced by UNISON and our members - and whatever judgement is made about the rights and wrongs of regional supervision in any particular case - it is vital that the return of these branches to normal lay democracy is expedited.



From a local point of view, the enthusiastic engagement of active members in the defence of public services depends in part upon the infrastructure of branch democracy.



From a Regional point of view, we need to deploy the resources currently swallowed up by Regional supervision to face the attacks from the Coalition Government.



Regional supervision should only ever be an exception - and a very temporary one. Now more than ever UNISON needs to remember this.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What next to fight the cuts?

Esteemed blogger Dave Osler is optimistic as ever about the prospects for resistance to the ConDems from the trade unions.

In responding to a call for restrictions on the rights of public sector workers to take industrial action Dave opines that "it is by no means certain that the big public sector unions have got sufficient fight left in them to mount anything more than token resistance to what the Tories and the Lib Dems have in store".

I think that this is a question which needs to be answered by those of us who are trade union activists. UNISON Branches can access campaign resources online very easily. It is in our hands to build the campaign that can stop the Coalition Government in its tracks.

Mike Marqusee in yesterday's Grauniad made a compelling case for health workers to stand up for the health service - even if that means industrial action - and a similar case can be made in all our public services.

We shouldn't need to be persuaded - attacks on public services are not just attacks upon our jobs (and hence our living standards and quality of life) but also upon the quality of life of all working people who rely upon our services.

The question isn't whether we should fight, only how. But this question does raise the further question of how we go about persuading our own members both that there is an alternative to public spending cuts (both in general and in any particular case) and also that we can use our collective power to shift the outcome of a dispute in the direction of that alternative.

It is clearly possible to win the argument with trade union members about the need to take action to defend our interests - the current dispute between the NUJ and the BBC is a topical example of this.

However, it is certainly true that trade unionists generally are not straining at the leash to go on strike, nor that the only thing holding us back is reluctant leadership.

In building up opposition to the ConDems (and - I ought to add - to any acts by Labour employers which essentially implement Government policy) we face the challenge of picking our fights based upon where we have the best chance of mobilising members and the best chance of winning something.

The decision of the London Regional Committee of the FBU in relation to the dispute in London has provoked some fairly predicatable online comment - I think that the tactical decisions governing any particular dispute must be the property of the workers in that dispute and the FBU Regional Committee only suspended the action provided the brigade agreed to go to arbitration and delay any decision on mass sackings until the authority meeting on 26 January. Other commentators may question this decision - but it has to be up to the Firefighters what they do with their own industrial action!

Public sector disputes are political disputes and industrial action is one (very important) tool with which we can apply political pressure.

Tactical decisions in local disputes have to be made in the context of the overall political situation at any point in time, and as activists we need to try to influence both of these aspects.

The TUC demonstration on 26 March seems a long way away and - whilst I am not convinced that the call for a General Strike really resonates with members in the here and now - I do think that we need some further activity far sooner than March, if we are going to encourage members to stand together in opposition to the coming cuts.

The call from the Norfolk Coalition Against Cuts for a demonstration on 4 December corresponds to the devastating cuts proposed in that County - but since we all face such attacks perhaps we should set that date for coordinated activity in every Region and locality?

Support a member led dispute

Perhaps the most refreshing thing I heard from an FBU speaker at this evening's Brixton meeting to build solidarity with the firefighters was his answer to a questioner who, in asking about the future of the dispute, advocated indefinite "all out" strike action.



What we were told was that this was a "member-led" dispute and that the tactics of the dispute going forward would be determined by the members.



This response is not only correct in principle - it is also tactically sound, since workers will not long endorse an approach to a dispute which we have not ourselves originated. Our trade unions should be just that - ours. The organisations of the ordinary workers paying our subs. The tactics of this dispute will be determined by firefighters.



That said, it seems clear that the intense provocation of the strikers by managers and scabs, including two incidents in which strikers were injured, is setting the scene for an escalation of action by the FBU if management don't back down.



This dispute now has totemic significance - if LFEPA can sack FBU members in order to re-engage them on less favourable terms, then every public sector employer will consider doing likewise - some already are.



Whatever the firefighters decide to do, the rest of us need to step up a gear with solidarity. The firefighters need our moral, financial and practical support in every way possible.



And, of course, let's all check our employer's fire risk assessments have been updated to take account of inadequate fire cover by barely trained scabs on strike days. Perhaps we should insist upon fire drills on each future strike day to check the adequacy of our employers safety arrangements.



In fact, why don't we press for co-ordinated fire drills?



We could all walk out of our workplaces when the FBU are on strike without contravening a single one of the anti-union laws...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Channel 4 exclusive - it's all our fault

Shame on you if you foolishly thought we were living through the aftermath of a recession which had its origins in the (private) financial services sector and with a Public Sector Borrowing Requirement massively enlarged by consequent reductions in tax revenues.

Channel 4 News - in a masterpiece of lazy and shoddy journalism has now revealed that it's all the fault of local government workers (http://www.channel4.com/news/council-spending-revealed-ahead-of-cuts).

Apparently we take more time off sick than the average private sector worker. The "cost" of this absence can be calculated in order to bash local government workers (a bloodsport that is always in season) - but this "cost" is meaningless since a marginal additional cost only arises where additional staff are taken on to cover for sickness absence, as happens only in a minority of cases of long term sickness.

Otherwise there is no financial cost - although of course there is a (non-financial) impact on service provision and (more importantly) an additional burden on those of us who aren't off sick to pick up as much of the work of those who are as we can manage.

One major factor in higher sickness absence in local government than the private sector average is the different profile of the workforce in terms of jobs. There is almost an epidemic of work related stress in some parts of the local government workforce. I would happily invite the "consultant" (which means overpaid layabout) who told Channel 4 that we can easily reduce sickness absence in local government to spend a week working alongside some of our front line workers (and living on the same salary) and see if they can hack it.

Another factor will be that we have civilised sick pay provisions, whilst for many non-unionised private sector workers a bout of 'flu' can mean trouble paying the bills next month.

I think the problem isn't really that local government workers take too much time off sick but that private sector workers take too little.

We should work to live, not live to work and to drag oneself into work when unwell for fear of losing money or upsetting the boss should be a source of shame, not pride.

I think the Channel 4 "journalist" who worked on this story may need a better attitude to their own sickness absence. They must have been so unwell when they reported on the increase in local government expenditure over the past decade that they forgot to take account of inflation, and of the consequent difference between current prices and constant prices...

I'll stick to BBC News from now on.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Torygraph stands up for victims of "brutal" cuts!

The Torygraph are up in arms for some victims of the public spending cuts being imposed by the ConDem coalition (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/8100744/Serco-isolated-as-supplier-squeeze-backfires.html).



That's the companies, suppliers of privateer Serco, who are being asked for a retrospective rebate of 2.5% (with the implied threat of no further contracts if they don't deliver) in response to Serco being asked by the Government to find savings from existing contracts.



The Government are upset too (since this rather exposes the half-baked "crowding out" thesis which leads them to believe that public sector cuts make room for private sector growth).



Although trade unionists should consistently oppose all the deflationary impacts of cutting public spending when aggreggate demand is already too low, I think I'll save my tears for the local authorities and benefit claimants facing so much worse (and, like most local government workers, I would make an exception to my opposition to such cuts if local authorities asked highly paid consultants for such a rebate.)



Local authority employees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who haven't had a pay rise since April last year have already given our employers - in real terms - a "rebate" of over 5%, and now we face front loaded cuts of 28%. As soon as the Torygraph shows us any sympathy I'll be sure to blog a link...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support the FBU

Firefighters in London (http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/) are striking today (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/nov/01/november-in-london-begins-with-strikes) and deserve the support of all trade unionists.



The threat of mass sacking to impose contractual change is the hallmark of the reactionary employer and if LFEPA get away with it than every trade unionist in London will be at greater risk.



In other organisations we need to review fire risk assessments and consider if existing control measures are adequate in circumstances in which scab outfit AssetCo are the only fire cover.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Uniting against the cuts in Lambeth

There are some good pictures of this afternoon's demonstration in Brixton on the urban75 blog (http://www.urban75.org/blog/lambeth-save-our-services-march-demo-and-rally/).

As well as a couple of fine shots of the Lambeth UNISON Banner, there are good pictures of Ellen, who addressed the rally on behalf of the Lambeth Pensioners Action Group and of the UNITE speaker who spoke about the attacks on the NHS.

Today's demonstration was a positive step forward and one which poses all the more clearly the importance of building united action against cuts in the borough.

Lambeth Save Our Services, which meets on the first and third Thursday of each month at 7pm at the Vida Walsh Centre was initiated by the local authority trade union branches in response to the Council announcing hundreds of job losses in May (http://lambethunison.blogspot.com/2010/06/opposition-to-public-service-cuts-in.html). It immediately attracted support from the UCU Branch at Lambeth College and the Lambeth Pensioners Action Group and now has the backing of the Tenants Council.

Lambeth SOS has two important strengths. It is a campaign against all cuts, whoever makes them, and it has a bias towards organising action. The campaign needs to continue to grow - it has the potential now to do so. Of course it goes without saying that these are early days and the campaign has a long way to go and much to do.

Other initiatives have also emerged.

Local supporters of the Right to Work Campaign (which appears to have no local organisational existence independently of the Socialist Workers Party) organised a well attended meeting (at which I spoke alongside Kate Hoey) in early September under the name of "Lambeth United Against Cuts" (http://www.lambethunited.org/about-us.html). This was an excellent meeting.

Following the September meeting the organisers had denied any intention to establish an organisation separate from Lambeth Save Our Services (SOS). They now aspire to "bring us closer to a broad delegate based anti-cuts campaign run by no single group or union, which allows participates to continue their own campaigning work." (A project requiring its own website).

This is a worthy aspiration and almost certainly most likely to be achieved if their authors turn up at the twice monthly SOS meetings which have been arranged, will take place and will organise resistance to cuts in Lambeth (at which their welcome contribution will be most helpful).

Meanwhile the officers of Lambeth Trades Council (which has not itself met as a full Trades Council since June) have kept their distance from the SOS campaign created by their most active affiliates. The Trades Council officers organised an "open" meeting which was markedly less well-attended than the "Lambeth United Against the Cuts" meeting and have initiated discussions with Streatham MP Chukka Umanna to develop a "broad based" campaign. These are positive initiatives in and of themselves.

The Trades Council could and should be central to opposition to the ConDem cuts in Lambeth just as Trades Councils in (for example) Barnet and Camden are. Almost certainly the crucial next step is for the Trades Council to meet so that delegates elected to represent Lambeth workers can discuss and agree how we move forward.

Separately the leadership of the Labour Group (http://www.lambethlabour.com/) put proposals to the Council trade unions for a "Lambeth Campaign for Fair Services" which are unlikely to make much headway since it's tough to campaign against cuts whilst making them.

However, it is important that Labour Party members and Councillors remain welcome in anti-cuts campaigning activity - whilst those of us who work for them may have disagreements with the Council as our employer we need unity against the ConDem Coalition who are, without doubt, our real enemy.

The discussion about how Labour Councillors - and Labour Councils - should respond to these cuts is only beginning and an active engagement by Labour Party members in anti-cuts campaigns will be as important as the openness of anti-cuts campaigners to such engagement if we are usefully to have this important discussion.

The people of Lambeth should no doubt be grateful that so many different approaches to how to respond to the ConDems are on offer in the borough!

As the cuts bite deeper we'll find that it is those prepared to act, to campaign and to fight who will be to the fore as working class people resist the attempt to put the clock back two generations and to eliminate our welfare state.

In Lambeth, those are the people who marched through Brixton this afternoon.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Off to a good start

Over 200 people marched through Brixton this afternoon behind the banner of Lambeth UNISON, organised by Lambeth Save Our Services, the joint union-community anti-cuts coalition which last week won the support of Lambeth's influential Tenants' Council.



Before the march speakers from UNISON, UNITE and the Lambeth Pensioners Action Group were joined by the Right to Work Campaign and student activists.



Following the good humoured and lively march, the marchers were addressed by former Council Leader Ted Knight and left Labour Councillor Kingsley Abrams.



The message of the march was one of opposition to the ConDems and to all public spending cuts. All in all, a good start to local campaigning.



We have much further to go.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Read all about it!

UNISON's detailed analysis of the Government Spending Review is available from the UNISON website: http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/Spending%20Review%202010%20-%20further%20analysis%20-%2025.10.2010.pdf. 



Half term homework!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The fightback is now

UNISON has published a handy summary of today's spending review available online (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/2010SpendingReviewAnalysis1.pdf).



The 3,000 strong march from Lincoln's Inn to Whitehall this evening has shown both what can be done by local union branches working through a campaigning Trades Council and the potential that exists for the union movement to mobilise opposition to the ConDems.



The continuing presence of protesters has somewhat depleted attendance at the meeting called by the Labour Representation Committee - but the trade union speakers are rightly calling for a unified fightback.



Apparently, Bob Crow says, the TUC demo on 26 March is not yet confirmed as the Royal Parks are worried that we might trample the daffodils, whereas the Government are just trampling on our communities...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unity against Croydon Council

I was pleased to be part of a good crowd outside Croydon Town Hall this evening protesting at the plans of that Tory Council to worsen the conditions of its entire workforce.

Croydon's experience could shape that in many London boroughs. It is strategically important that UNISON activists everywhere support the Croydon branch.

The Order of Lenin is due to the Lambeth comrade who ensured we could take our banner - where it stood proudly alongside the banners of Croydon UNISON, NUT and Trades Council as well as SERTUC.

It was good to see the Regional Secretary of SERTUC there as well as a leading comrade from PCS (not to mention a member of the TUC General Council - even if he was a local!). I was pleased that, by my presence as a UNISON NEC member, I was also signifying support - however there is more to do for our Union.

UNISON needs to raise our game when it comes to supporting activities across branches since we currently punch far below our weight. (It was good that branches had been encouraged to support the protest at last Thursday's Regional Council and that - perhaps in recognition of the fact that many branches had been discouraged from attending the Regional Council, leaving it inquorate - an email reminder had been sent round this morning. However, for the future we need to do more, faster and better at Regional level).

Our active members in Croydon this evening showed us all what to do as a protest organised by the UNISON branch drew support from across the movement. This sort of energy is being shown in many boroughs and needs to be encouraged.

Croydon also had a more musical approach to protest than I am used to (although anyone familiar with my singing will realise that I don't join in as my singing voice could be used as an offensive weapon against those attacking our public services...)

We need - urgently - a national and Regional strategy to support our active members in branches like Croydon who are prepared to campaign.

In the mean time we need to cross the boundaries of our boroughs and our branches in order to show solidarity.

I should also add that this evening was a great tribute to the memory of my dear friend, Malcolm Campbell (http://www.remembermalcolmcampbell.blogspot.com/) since it showed how his former branch have moved on to face new challenges following his untimely demise just eighteen months ago.

It has recently been suggested to me that we need more of a memorial to Malcolm but, on reflection I think his memorial is all around.

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lao_tzu.html)

Tonight, Malcolm, my brother, my friend, they did indeed do it themselves.

Tonight I was as proud of my brother Malcolm as I know he would have been proud of his former branch.

Tomorrow the fight goes on. And as long as it goes on and as long as we march forward into that fight, Malcolm's memory marches with us.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Bosses back their own Government shock

A gaggle of plutocrats and parasites have had someone put pen to paper for them and written to the Torygraph to express support for the ConDem's planned spending cuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8069947/Spending-Review-2010-cut-now-or-pay-later-say-business-leaders.html).

Yes these are the leading lights of the same private sector which got us in to this mess in the first place - and one of the few groups of letter writers imaginable who may actually have a higher average net worth than the Cabinet of millionaires itself. They and their children won't be suffering when Osborne follows Cable's advice to make "savage cuts".

To the extent that the "business leaders" have an economic argument in their letter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8069609/Osbornes-cuts-will-strengthen-Britains-economy-by-allowing-the-private-sector-to-generate-more-jobs.html) it is this;

"The private sector should be more than capable of generating additional jobs to replace those lost in the public sector, and the redeployment of people to more productive activities will improve economic performance, so generating more employment opportunities."

This argument fails on many levels. Ask Connaught workers if public spending cuts increase private sector employment opportunities!

This is no more than a rehash of the 1970s "crowding out" thesis, which was tested to destruction in the 1980s (and destroyed many jobs and communities in the process).

Having only recently returned to the sixth form where I first studied economics thirty years ago I can recollect this argument when it was still new and could go on about it at greter length.

However Aditya Chakrabortty gave a good summary in the Grauniad a fortnight ago (http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/05/george-osborne-margaret-thatcher) so you can just read that.

The only question I would ask is this. Do these "business leaders" believe their own arguments because they are ignorant of economic history or is this reheated Thatcherism no more than a populist cover story for an attempt to shrink the public sector in an attempt to increase profitability at the expense of the living standards of working people?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Defending the NHS after the legal challenge...

UNISON’s legal challenge to the NHS White Paper may not have succeeded. However our campaign in defence of public services goes on.

Legal challenges are a legitimate and necessary tactic. Justice Mitting may have ruled that the court could not place a legal demand on the government to consult the public, patients or staff over plans contained in its NHS white paper. However, he said that it was perfectly proper for UNISON to seek a judicial review, and that the union had raised an important principle that was in the constitutional interest.

More to the point, any tactic which helps to focus attention on the detail of aspects of the ConDems assault upon our public services has validity. There must be a danger that the suggestion that the health budget is being “protected” will distract attention from the truly appalling proposals in the White Paper as we mobilise against the draconian cuts which will hit many other parts of the public sector from Wednesday onwards.

The challenge for UNISON now is to break out of our service group silos and unify our campaigning around our one priority – the defence of public services, including the NHS. If we can mobilise an excellent attendance at a training Conference for health branches then we can mobilise around campaigning activity locally, Regionally and nationally. Those who want to unite UNISON in Greater London should get along to the Regional Council on 7 December – and should overcome political differences which weren’t an affordable luxury even before the General Election.

At a local level UNISON branches need to be linking up, with all other union branches and local community organisations in order to resist cuts – the TUC “Stronger Unions blog” has some thoughtful online advice. Dave Prentis also recommends that we link up with the Citizens Organisation. We need to pull out all the stops to engage UNISON members beyond our largest Service Group, otherwise we’ll fail to focus sufficiently widely on the full range of attacks upon the Welfare State.

The challenges we now face make the differences within the Union, which can seem so important to those involved, appear as trivial as they probably always were.

Unity is strength.

Lobby Croydon Council on Monday 18 October

Croydon UNISON is calling on as many members as possible to Lobby the above meeting where questions are to be asked in respect of the Employment Based Cost Review proposals (Croydon Council's plans to attack the conditions of service of their staff inspired by the troublemaking schemes of the national local government employers).

The branch rightly feel that it is extremely important that the Councillors know of the depth of feeling amongst staff in relation to how the proposals will affect them. This is the opportunity for Croydon employees to show how you feel about your Terms and Conditions of Employment. The branch are calling for the biggest possible turnout and urge members to attend if possible. They will be bringing the Branch Banner and other unions will be in attendance.

Other groups who have concerns about the impact of cuts in the Community will be supporting a demonstration at the same time.

Lobbyists will be gathering outside the Town Hall Steps, Katherine Street at 5.30 pm, in time to lobby Councillors before they begin the Meeting at 6.30 pm.

This assault upon UNISON members in Croydon is of relevance to all UNISON members and I hope that as many members in neighbouring boroughs, hospitals and colleges as can get along to Katherine Street at 5.30pm tomorrow will do so. Labour Councils need to be pledging that they won't join in any attacks upon the conditions of service of staff!

Croydon residents can also download a letter from the branch to send to their local Councillor.

I hope to see you there!

Personal report of the October 2010 UNISON NEC meeting

Here, all in one place, is my personal report to London branches from the last UNISON NEC which does bear some significant similarities with posts on this blog reporting from the meeting...

This is a personal report of the October 2010 meeting of UNISON’s National Executive Council (NEC) intended for members and branches in the Greater London Region. An official report of the meeting is available online at http://www.unison.co.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=6374.

I am always happy to respond to questions about reports, or to attend meetings of branches or Branch Committees (subject to notice and availability). You can contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk or on 07957505571.

This is a personal report. It is not an official document nor is it intended to be a comprehensive report of everything which was discussed. The most important discussions, about defending public services, the National Health Service and public sector pay are reflected in a lot of content on the UNISON website, to which you should refer to for further information.

NEC meeting timetable

The NEC had not met between National Delegate Conference and early October. I had indicated before the meeting that I intended to raise my concerns about this, and I understand that I was certainly not the only member concerned about this long delay between meetings.

This meant that the full NEC had no say in UNISON's decision to vote for major constitutional changes at the TUC. It also meant that the NEC were mere spectators in a major reorganisation of our senior management structures. Most importantly, our NEC had failed to meet in the immediate aftermath of the Emergency Budget and the most important challenge UNISON has ever faced.

I am therefore pleased to report that the President, Angela Lynes, indicated that the future timetable for NEC meetings would be reviewed. I will report back on this in the future.

Organising report

As ever the meeting commenced with a report on recruitment and organisation. It was reported that we are growing at an annualised rate of 1.63% which means that - given a turnover in excess of 10% we are recruiting 12% of our membership each year. One in four of new applicants now join online, which means that the internet is now second only to national strike action in boosting our recruitment.
The Three Companies Project (about which the NEC is to receive a full report) has raised density on the ten contracts upon which it has focused from 21 to 55%. For privatised contracts these are impressive figures.

Public Sector Pay

Discussion on pay at the October NEC took place in the context of the decision, the previous day, of UNISON's National Joint Council to support a claim for local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of "at least" £250 a year from 1 April 2011.

This claim, on behalf of workers in the largest single bargaining group in the economy, who last saw a pay rise on 1 April 2009 reflects the view, also prevalent at the NEC, that our members are not (yet) in a mood to fight over pay as they worry where the redundancy axe may fall.

The General Secretary made a more considered and far sighted contribution to this discussion when he observed that pay restraint always breaks down, but not normally in the first year.

Whilst this does not seem at all like the first year of pay restraint for local government workers, it probably is true that we need to focus on the medium term to pursue the objective of a fair pay increase.

I hope that at future NEC meetings we shall be considering pay alongside the defence of public services. The Government do not compartmentalise these issues and are as happy to cut the real terms pay of low paid workers as they are to savage the services received by our communities.

Under this item the NEC also considered the recent "leak" that the School Support Staff Negotiating Body may never now sit. The relevant sector Committee within the Local Government Service Group has called for a consultative ballot to consider national industrial action if the Government do proceed to abolish the SSSNB. Certainly the Government's approach of abolishing first and consulting later deserves a robust response. National industrial action by school support staff is an ambitious goal - but this is probably the only time when a national trade dispute around which such action could lawfully be organised will ever exist.

Equal Pay

The section of the NEC meetings at which we receive reports on Equal Pay remain confidential because of the volume of litigation involving the Union.

I can safely mention that UNISON will be complaining about the treatment of the Union in the recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme.

Defence of public services

The major item for discussion at this NEC, led off by our General Secretary but also involving most of the other senior officers in the room in one way or another, was around a report entitled "Defending Public Services." Dave Prentis made clear that this should be viewed as THE priority for our Union over the coming months, and should provide the focus and direction for all the activities of every part of our Union. Probably because this was the first NEC meeting since Conference (and therefore also the first since the Emergency Budget) the combined length of the officer introductions to this 11 page report exceeded an hour, although as the report's author rightly pointed out; "UNISON must be judged by our actions in this period not the length and extent of our analysis." The report itself usefully summarised the attacks upon us from the Coalition Government and the response to date from UNISON and the wider trade union movement. Rather than repeat that here I will append the document to my report to London UNISON Branches. The key point from this debate was that our defence of public services must be the central principle around which we organise all our trade union activity, building towards the TUC demonstration in March (and various elections in May) on the basis of local anti-cuts activity. See the attached report for more information.

General Secretary’s Report

By the time we got to the agenda item for the General Secretary's Report we had already covered a lot of ground, but Dave asked the Head of Health to report on our response to the NHS White Paper. We were told that UNISON's legal challenge to the White Paper (over the inadequacy of consultation) had sent "an almighty shudder through the Department for Health."
However, the best that this legal challenge can achieve will be delay and so we also need a campaign which must go beyond being a campaign "in" the NHS (though it must be the greatest of those there has ever been) to be a campaign "for" the NHS. Once consortia of General Practitioners, expensively if not ably assisted by private consultants, start purchasing healthcare provision on the market, the "renationalisation" of the health service would probably require withdrawal from the European Union and abrogation of international treaty obligations. The White Paper goes far further than any previous attempt to open up healthcare to private profit and would replace the National Health Service (in England) with a national healthcare market "free at the point of use" but increasingly prone to the development of two-tier provision as providers try to turn a profit. For UNISON this is a great challenge to us to see to it that all our Service Groups and all our branches (even all our NEC members) are fully engaged in a struggle, which is in all our interests, to preserve the single greatest achievement of our movement.

At the tail end of the General Secretary's Report (which is an opportunity to ask about anything at all) I asked some questions prompted by information from some London Borough branches. I asked about the perceived tardiness of legal advice to branches facing significant challenges. I was advised that this was the first our General Secretary had heard of such a problem and that further details would elicit a further response. I will pursue this. I also advocated our writing to members resident in the area of any local authority attacking our members, urging them to lobby Councillors against such attacks. I was advised that we do use this tactic but that its expense means that we employ it sparingly. I concur with the views of the London Branch Secretary who felt that we should look at how to moderate the cost to the national union of this sensible tactic - by, for example, branch funds paying the postage and branch activists stuffing the envelopes.
NUC

Towards the end of a long NEC meeting we got on to the NUC (NUC = New Union Centre, the somewhat delayed building rising on the site of the former Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital which will be our new HQ). We were presented with recommendations from the Finance Committee that, rather than sell the freehold of Mabledon Place once we have vacated it, we should lease the site to a developer on a long lease in return for a cut of the rent which the leaseholder will receive from the tenant when the building has been refurbished. My concern - which was met sufficiently that I voted for the recommendation - was that we should regularly consider selling the remaining freehold interest in the site. I was persuaded that we would have the flexibility to do this at any time when it was financially advantageous - and was swayed by the fact that the £13 Million we will get up front for the lease will pay off the loan we took out to build the "NUC". Other NEC members raised the sound point that we could face problems if the leaseholder rented out a site which we still owned (as freeholder) to a tenant whose business was at odds with our aims and values. Branches may wish to consider a Conference motion instructing the NEC to dispose of the freehold as soon as is consistent with the duties of our trustees (who appeared not to have been kept completely in the loop). It makes sense to sell a leasehold interest in the property right now, but a trade union should probably not aim to hold its reserves in freehold property in the long term. We don't always do well when we do things beyond our basic functions as a trade union.

Staffing Committee report – appointment of Assistant General Secretaries

I supported an attempt by North West Region NEC member Roger Bannister to move reference back of the report of the Staffing Committee. Roger was addressing the manner of the announcement to NEC members of the decision to recruit additional Assistant General Secretaries (AGSs). Roger queried both the need for additional posts at this level and the decision to proceed with such an important decision without a discussion at the full NEC.

President Angela Lynes ruled that we could not "refer back" a report of the Staffing Committee because of its Rule Book autonomy from the NEC (which may be debatable) but permitted a vote on whether or not to receive the report (a proposition eventually agreed by a convincing majority).

The debate saw a spirited defence of the decision from Dave Prentis and a reasoned intervention from lead North West Region NEC member Bernie Gallagher who highlighted the fact that attempts to debate the election of officials at Conference are ruled out of order for fear that they could breach the contracts of staff, yet here we were happily appointing new staff without even considering the option of electing to the newly created posts.

I asked about the fact that Dave's original letter on this topic had said that "As part of a restructuring process, the new posts will be ringfenced to existing staff and members and advertised internally..." I pointed out that I had had correspondence with the Chair of Staffing querying the wisdom of this approach.

Dave Prentis told the NEC that since his letter in August the Union had thought again and that the posts were now being advertised openly.

Although I would personally support the election of these senior officials, if they are to be appointed at least we now know that anyone can apply and that the appointment panel can choose from the widest pool of talent.

How do we fight the cuts?

Having had an earlier post on this subject not so much savaged by a dead sheep as somewhat criticised by a seriously unwell little lamb (http://grayee.blogspot.com/2010/10/ultra-lefts-cunning-plan-to-smash.html) I think it worth returning to the important question of how we need to fight cuts in public services.

The key is local activism, mobilising and learning from workers on the ground and from our communities who are the users of our services.

Trade union branches must be central to this campaigning - and have a vital role to build up our own membership and organisation through this struggle - yet we must avoid trying to dominate the alliances we must make.

We need to approach community campaigners with solidarity and humility. UNISON in London needs to learn from the errors made by the office in its approach to London Citizens for example.

We need however to approach politicians with caution and relate to them on our terms and not theirs.

This applies both to Labour Councillors (and MPs) (including those union activists whose first loyalty is to their Labour Party positions rather than our members) who may want us to fight ConDem cuts whilst swallowing those proposed by Labour politicians, and to revolutionaries who have already worked out for us what we should be doing. Workers need, IMHO, guidance from neither source. I have confidence in ordinary members of our Union far more than in any politicians.

(For those of us with Labour employers it goes without saying that this caution about politicians also applies - with bells on! - to Opposition Councillors!)

The essence of resisting cuts is - as the SERTUC Regional Secretary said to the embarrasingly inquorate UNISON Greater London Regional Council earlier today - the sort of campaigning that saved jobs in Lambeth's One O'Clock Clubs this summer. We need campaigns which unite workers and service users and pile effective pressure on decision-makers.

I look forward to guidance from the Union at Regional level which will educate our activists at local level about how we could be doing even better.

In the mean time we'll just keep fighting.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Londoners - support the Firefighters!

London's firefighters have voted to strike (http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/pressrelease/2010/10_14.php).



A 79% yes vote on a 79% turnout is an emphatic mandate to respond appropriately to the provocation of madcap reactionary employers using the threat of mass sackings to try to force through detrimental changes to working arrangements.



Longer serving Lambeth Council trade unionists know the leadership of LFEPA's HR function well - they should know better than to pick a fight with the FBU! UNISON and GMB members are also set to ballot.



All London trade unionists should back our firefighters who are well placed - if we do enough to back them - to win a vital defensive victory and set a precedent of benefit to all workers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Bucking our ideas up?

The unfortunately inquorate meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Council is now hearing an important presentation about the work of Show Racism the Red Card (http://www.srtrc.org/).



The inspiring and positive contributions from both Megan Dobney and Jeremy Corbyn, about which I have just blogged, have however got me thinking about whether our Region is really as fit as it could be for the purpose of coordinating our defence of public services.



Since Geoff Martin stood down as Regional Convenor the only quorate meetings of our Regional Council have been the Annual General Meetings. Cross service group co-ordination is done not in large and representative meetings but in a small Committee the proceedings of which are not shared with our members.



The office mobilises brilliantly for the annual health training day, and to get delegates along to the AGM, but an internal focus will not suffice to mobilise our 130,000+ members on the streets.



Regular readers Sid and Doris Marxist-Leninist will be familiar with my occasional role as a "critical friend" to the UNISON machine in Greater London, but righjt now, the single priority set by our NEC seems so much more important than internal political squabbles.



I hope that this view can now prevail and that UNISON in Greater London can achieve our potential now that we need to more than ever.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The need for collective action

Jeremy Corbyn, MP is reporting to the inquorate UNISON Regional Council that the growing membership of trade unions and the Labour Party shows a recognition of the need for collective action in the face of the attacks from the ConDems.



The Coalition have successfully shifted debate from a crisis caused by bankers to a crisis of state welfare. The Welfare State is under attack across Europe.



I'm pleased to hear Jeremy focusing on the housing benefit cuts, and making the case for higher education as a public good rather than an individual investment. We certainly need to make the case against these attacks as strongly as we make the case against direct cuts in jobs and services.



Jeremy has called for support for the TUC lobby on the 19th, the Camden Trades Council demonstration on the 20th and the RMT/FBU demonstration.



Jeremy also wants us all to make sure that our MPs are in Parliament on Friday 22 October to support John McDonnell's Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill - we certainly need to remove some of the obstacles to lawful industrial action so that we are better able to resist attacks such as those in Croydon and elsewhere.



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Collapse the Coalition!

Megan Dobney of SERTUC is addressing the sadly inquorate meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Council and setting out how we must go about trying to bring down the Coalition Government.



She's right that we have our work cut out to win the argument - first of all with our own members - that cuts are not required. The TUC back PCS in their focus upon bringing down tax avoidance and evasion. 20,000 more jobs in HMRC could raise twenty billion quid - but the ConDems would rather savage our services than collect our cash.



Megan, a Lambethan, has made the point that our defence of the One O'Clock Clubs shows how to mobilise service users and communities to fight job cuts. She has also called for support for Monday's lobby of Croydon Council, who are facing a spirited response to their attack upon the conditions of service of our workforce and for support for both the SERTUC rally and the FBU/RMT march leading to that rally.



Campaigning work can shift popular opinion - majority opposition to Royal Mail privatisation is a product of campaigning by CWU over recent years. The French experience shows how we too can mobilise.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange