Compromising situations

When I was trained to prepare and run tribunal cases by what we in UNISON call my "former partner union" it was the case that a worker could not contract out of their statutory rights.

An employer could only guarantee that they would not face litigation if they negotiated a settlement with the assistance of an ACAS Conciliation Officer. Employers making redundancies needed to be sure that they followed a fair procedure, as even workers who had taken relatively generous severance packages could bring claims for unfair dismissal, requiring the employer to show that they had behaved reasonably.

I have no sympathy for those who complain about the cost of tribunal proceedings - it's a small price to pay for employers to have to justify in public removing someone's means of earning a living.

However, as the decline in collective industrial action saw a corresponding rise in tribunal litigation, successive Governments have taken various steps to reduce the caseload of tribunals - all of them to the detriment of workers' interests.

One of the earliest such steps was the introduction - almost twenty years ago - of Compromise Agreements. These Agreements breach the principle that you can't contract out of your statutory rights and enable employers to bind and gag workers as they are dismissed, provided that certain requirements are met.

Provided that a worker has been advised by a solicitor before signing the Agreement, they can lawfully surrender all possible legal claims in return for whatever it is the employer is offering them.

I am deeply uncomfortable when public bodies routinely require Compromise Agreements as a quid pro quo for the most paltry enhancements to the miserable statutory minimum redundancy payments. It suggests that the employer has no confidence in the fairness of their own redundancy procedure. It also adds a cost of £350 plus VAT to each dismissal.

Where the Union - to help members gain access to what little severance they may be receiving - puts members in touch with our solicitors, we end up assisting in the administration of job losses which we ought to be resisting.

Given that an employer which believed itself to be acting fairly ought not to need to protect itself with Compromise Agreements with redundant employees, perhaps our Union ought not to be assisting in the administration of a process which is entirely about workers giving up their rights.

Perhaps we should campaign for the abolition of Compromise Agreements. If we believe that statutory entitlements should set a floor on which we seek to build better terms and conditions by collective bargaining then we should want to see a return of the principle that a worker cannot contract out of those statutory rights.

As uncomfortable as I am about what it says about dodgy employment practices when an employer seeks Compromise Agreements on an industrial scale, I am at least equally uncomfortable about our role as trade unionists in this Compromise Agreement industry.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Parallel roads to socialism?

Never afraid to hold unfashionable views, I believe that Labour Councils should refuse to implement Tory cuts.

I believe in UNISON's alternative budget - and therefore believe that there is no economic need for public spending cuts which do devastating social harm.

Since the deficit does not need to be reduced at the expense of those who rely upon public services (nor those who provide them) I think that UNISON should resist every cut.

It must follow from this that we call upon elected representatives not to make cuts. Except that we can't - or at least, that seems to be the national "line" (though I am not aware of any Conference policy which would support the views of our national officials).

It was today reported to the London Region Local Government Executive that the Head of Local Government had reported to the National Joint Council (NJC) Committee that we should encourage local authorities to draw up the budgets they would like to be implementing.

Rather than calling these "needs" budgets, these are now to be known as parallel budgets and - whilst we should press for them to be drawn up - we should certainly not campaign for their implementation, or so the Committee was reportedly told.

This somewhat confusing approach is consistent with the decisions of the Standing Orders Committees (SOCs) for both Local Government and National Delegate Conference to rule out of order motions - reflecting the policy of UNISON's Scottish Council - which called for UNISON to support elected representatives refusing to set "cuts" budgets.

The esteemed members of the SOCs have concluded that UNISON could be at risk of litigation from some unknown third party were we to call upon local Councillors to take action which would not even expose them to any risk of legal action!

If Councillors refused to set a balanced budget (because they found the requisite savaging of public services at the behest of the Tory Government unacceptable) they would find that their Chief Finance Officer would put a block on all discretionary spending until a Council meeting had taken place to consider her (or his) report on the matter. Were they to refuse to follow officers' advice such restrictions - and further meetings - could be repeated ad nauseam.

Ultimately, Councillors might find that the Government dug out legal powers to circumvent their opposition and implement cuts but - unlike in the 1980s when Councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool preferred to take risks themselves rather than impose those risks on the working people who had elected them - there would be no threat of surcharge.

Nevertheless, UNISON's SOCs have concluded that were our trade union to offer support to politicians refusing to make cuts we could be at risk of legal action. Some might think this an obviously implausible justification for a blatantly political decision not to permit our Conferences to have debates, the outcomes of which might embarrass the Labour leadership. I however know that UNISON SOCs just don't work that way and would never make such a suggestion. (Although I do question whether such decisions are truly consistent with Rule P).

What may be more troubling for our Union is the decision of the SOC for National Delegate Conference to rule out of order an amendment intending to promote precisely the policy of parallel budgets being advocated by our national officials. The SOC appear to have concluded that such an approach is either an attempt to pursue the "needs budget" approach by the back door, or that it is hopelessly confusing and therefore not competent.

Of course the only point of a parallel budget is to provide a campaigning tool for activists to frame demands upon politicians nationally and locally. A needs budget (or a "parallel" budget) is a basis to lobby Whitehall or Westminster for more resources - but it is also a tool to use to persuade decent Councillors to vote for the needs of their constituents rather than subordinating those needs to the financial restrictions imposed by central government.

It may be that we do need to decide whether we are against the cuts or not. If we are then we should oppose cuts and call upon politicians not to implement them. If we're not then we should pack up and go home.

At the very least, we must be able, at our policy-making Conferences, to debate the full range of options for UNISON policy in relation to public spending cuts, including the eminently reasonable and responsible position of our Scottish Council - that we should support politicians who refuse to make cuts.

Anyone who thinks that they are helping the Labour Party by preventing such a debate within the largest trade union should have a quick look at the recent Scottish election results. The trade unions need to rescue the Party from itself - from the dregs of Blairism polluting its upper reaches. We cannot do that if we won't permit ourselves even to debate the full range of policy and campaiging options.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Career averages and accrual rates

It's good to see PCS Conference joining the Conferences of ATL and the NUT in agreeing to ballot for action over pensions on 30 June, joining UCU who, of course, already have a mandate for action.

In the midst of redundancies, UNISON activists need continually to renew our focus upon the attack on pensions so that our members grasp the enormity of the theft which the Government is perpetrating.

I was fortunate on Monday to be invited to a meeting of the Lambeth Teachers' Association, where I saw the NUT's online pension calculator spelling out to teachers what they would lose.

Such calculations will vary, in their detail, from scheme to scheme, but it is essential that the strategy of the trade unions proceeds in the direction of greater unity rather than allowing the advent of "scheme-specific" discussions to fracture us into a myriad of separate disputes and negotiations.

Because, if you were designing a pension scheme from scratch in a fair society, a "career average" scheme might seem preferable to a final salary scheme, there is a danger that some in the trade union movement might be tempted to look for a deal which accepts significant and detrimental changes if they can be dressed up as delivering some greater "fairness".

What we need to watch out for is the proposed "accrual rate" in any proposed scheme. To keep the same overall pension "pot" the percentage of each year's salary which is "earned" as future pension needs to be equivalent to the percentage of final salary currently "earned" for each year of service - indeed, since (on average) final salaries will be higher than career average salaries, even this equivalence would represent a reduction in total pension payments.

Therefore, for those of us in pension schemes which currently pay one sixtieth of final salary per year of service, any accrual rate below 1.67% would represent a very significant further reduction in pension benefits - and even at that accrual rate, rather than redistributing pension payments from higher to lower paid workers, the redistribution would be from the higher paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If the Government are suggesting much lower accrual rates then that would expose their true intention - to collapse our pension schemes completely and to force us out into the private market to enrich their City backers by gambling with our savings in expensive money-purchase pension schemes.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Building a future of equality in difficult times

Three different events of today are linked for me - in reverse chronological order they are as follows.

First, it is wonderful news that there is to be a fresh trial in the case of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. This reawakens the distant hope of justice for the victim of a brutal racist crime.

Secondly, I am on the way home from the opening of UNISON's new centre, an impressive building on the Euston Road which will be a resource for union activists for decades to come.

Thirdly, I was at the new UNISON Centre for a meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC), which considered (amongst other things - concerning which, watch this space) a report on the current review of self-organisation in UNISON.

It is because UNISON has strong and vibrant self-organisation that it is to the fore in promoting equality. Whereas important UNISON principles, such as proportionality and fair representation, are about ensuring that the representative bodies of our union look representative of all our members, self-organisation alone can ensure that our union policies reflect the views and interests of our members in oppressed groups.

Self-organisation is therefore at the heart of the values which, our General Secretary said today, are embodied in our new building. Self-organisation is also vital to the role which UNISON has played, both in supporting the struggle for justice for Stephen Lawrence, and in fighting for the benefits promised by the legislative changes inspired by his brutal killing.

Self-organisation, of black workers, women, LGBT workers and disabled workers is not - and was never meant to be - a temporary phenomenon. I was shocked to find that this appears to be the view of a number of my NEC colleagues.

Self-organisation is not a temporary expedient whilst we improve "fair representation" within our "mainstream" structures. We should certainly have fair representation, but not at the expense of self-organisation.

To take a couple of examples, racism - in its "modern" form - has been embedded in global capitalism since it became necessary for liberals, such as the authors of the American Declaration of Independence, to rationalise treating some humans as subhuman on the basis of pigmentation. Sexism has been vital to the stable reproduction of capitalist social relations since women were first succesfully equated with children in the 1842 Mines Act.

The struggle against these forms of oppression in the modern world is not some adjunct or "optional extra" for socialists and trade unionists. Since there truly are "none so fit to break the chains as those who bear them" it must therefore be the case that self-organisation is permanently at the (non-negotiable) heart of what it is to be in UNISON.

Unless and until working people conquer society - and for perhaps a century thereafter - it will be essential that those victimised by particular forms of oppression can organise together to confront these. It follows that trade unions should support self-organised groups of oppressed members with resources and encouragement.

It is because UNISON has done this that we, as a trade union, have consistently supported the Lawrence family - and this is a massive part of the reason why I was proud to be there for the opening of our new Centre.

The review of self-organisation in UNISON could see the use of recognised shortcomings to undermine and neutralise structures which cannot be understood or supported by those who fail to comprehend the particular significance and importance of particular forms of special oppression.

On the other hand, this review could just be the shot in the arm which self-organisation needs to become the forthright and radical advocate of the views of members which we need.

Let every good activist attempt to achieve the latter rather than the former. UNISON members need a review of self-organisation which focuses on support for members fighting job losses, rather than upon internal issues.

A proper review of self-organisation should unleash the enormous power of our members who want our Union to be better at fighting job losses - and encouraging resistance to attempts to water down the fight for equality in the workers' movement.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

I'm a nurse, that's what I am - Yunus

Marvellous to hear Yunus Bakhsh speaking today to UNISON United Left about his reinstatement by the employer following his success at the employment tribunal.



After fighting for years Yunus will soon be back at work and, as he said today, he will once more be able to answer the question; "what do you do?"



I hope the day will come when Yunus is once more a UNISON member as well as a nurse.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The tragedy of the employment tribunals

It's absolutely right that we should challenge and oppose attempts by the Tory Coalition to extend the qualifying period of employment for unfair dismissal claims (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/100371) and generally to make it harder for workers to seek justice in employment tribunals (http://www.personneltoday.com/articlesbytopic/192/pageid,1/tribunals.htm).

These are disgraceful acts of class war being waged by the Government of the millionaires against the interests of the millions.

However, we also need to recognise just how much less useful employment tribunals have become for workers - as a direct result of the increased role for lawyers, both as representatives and as agents encouraging claims for negligence.

Industrial tribunals were intended to be relatively informal settings in which unions and management could argue their case in front of an "industrial jury" with representatives of management and workers sitting on the tribunal.

They were an expression of tripartism, the 60s/70s model of regulating industrial conflict by incorporating workers into processes and institutions which offered some limited recognition of our rights and interests as an alternative to overt conflict.

As late as the early 1990s when I started more than a decade of regular tribunal representative as a lay union official (or "jumped up shop steward"), it was quite normal for lay and full time union officials to appear as tribunal representatives - sometimes with employee relations specialists from what we used to call personnel sections representing the employers.

We could back a case if it felt like the right thing to do, or if we needed to show our members that we backed a popular or long-serving colleague, or to show the employer that we were serious about enforcing the procedures which we had agreed with them.

As long as we didn't pursue completely hopeless cases we ran no risk that our members would face an order for costs even if we lost - and since the employers knew we would challenge almost any dismissal in an employment tribunal they were always on their toes when it came to following procedures before any dismissal.

It was the employers who first started using their own solicitors, and then barristers in the tribunal. For a capable and experienced union representative this wasn't a problem - it was great to represent a member whose case you had been immersed in for a year against a junior barrister who had never even had a real job and had received the case papers (tied up with a ribbon)(why?) the night before.

However, many members, seeing that the employer had lawyers wanted them on their side too - and, as society has become increasingly litigous so negligence claims against trade unions increased. In the early years of this century such claims were the fastest growing area of law involving unions (reaching their most extreme expression in the rash of equal pay related claims which could have bankrupted UNISON a few years ago).

Although the tide of claims against trade unions may now be receding, it washed away the way we used to deal with tribunal cases. In order to bring UNISON's professional indemnity insurance premiums under control, the union had to ban its officials from representing members in employment tribunals.

Now we refer such cases to solicitors and - if they think that the case has sufficient merit and advise us accordingly - we instruct them to take the case (and the legal liability which goes with it). Members who have a good case get quality representation, but members with a marginal case are left to fend for themselves. In the way of things, sometimes those members win a case we wouldn't take, or get a settlement after we have had to refuse to represent them. Though those cases may be a tiny fraction of the cases we have to refuse, they are of course the ones of which other members become aware. This is bad PR for the union, but that isn't something that can now be taken into account in deciding whether to take a case to tribunal.

Although this change was marketed at the time as freeing up the time of officers and activists for organising, it doesn't do that. There is as much work in preparing a case for the solicitors as ever there was in doing it yourself. The benefit to the union is entirely about the cost of professional indemnity insurance.

We have lost so much more. We cannot bring marginal claims to enhance the Union's reputation (workers don't mind seeing us lose a marginal case if we fought it with intelligence and determination - and we can recruit on the back of the respect gained by having been willing to have a go).

We have lost the ability to back a weak case for a respected and long serving member, leaving us vulnerable to the perception that we abandon our own in times of trouble - and losing the enormous benefit that came from the employer knowing that every dismissal of a UNISON member would be challenged in an employment tribunal (in all the years I represented many members against my own employer in the employment tribunal they never got costs against us - and almost never even tried).

We have lost the ability to weigh factors other than the specific legal merits of the particular individual case when deciding which cases to support. For an organising union this is a tragic loss, since we cannot decide to pursue a weak (but not hopeless) case in order to advance an organising objective - nor can we weigh the detailed local knowledge of our representatives as to the likelihood of the employer giving ground ahead of a hearing.

Most importantly of all, our lay and full time officials have lost the experience of tribunal representation. Regular appearances in the tribunal meant that you had to keep up with case law - and that paid dividends daily in negotiations with management and in internal hearings. Union officials who knew they would regularly be advocating for members at the tribunal were forced to try to keep abreast of case law.

Now that we don't do this, the pressure of other work means that it is hard to justify the day a year on a course to update employment law - or the odd afternoon in the Guildhall Library (the only public library in London to have the Industrial Relations Law Reports). It must be five years since I took trade union time to read up on the latest cases.

I realised this recently when I found the case of Junk v Kuhnel (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2005/C18803.html), which has materially changed the law on the timing of dismissal in mass redundancy situations since last I had to deal with mass redundancies. When I was routinely in tribunals I would have lived and breathed such case law.

What really frightens me most of all is that we are now recruiting a generation of Regional Organisers who never have represented, and never will represent, a member in an employment tribunal.

Life is a mixed ability lesson, and the worst enemies of the trade union movement wouldn't accuse us of meritocracy, but do we really think that, now and forever, our activists and officials can never be capable of representing members in employment tribunals?

I think we need to pause and reflect on this. The law is far far too important for trade union members for us to leave it to lawyers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Labour - fight the cuts

The Labour Representation Committee (LRC) has now published an analysis of Thursday's election results (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/elections-2011-labour-must-offer-an-alternative/), arguing persuasively that Labour did well where it was perceived as a means of expressing opposition to, and defending communities from, the Tory Coalition Government.



This means that there is all the more need for the debate we tried to start earlier this year about how Labour Councils should respond to a financial settlement which makes it impossible to meet social need (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/why-councillors-should-fight-the-cuts/).



Labour Group Leaders are due to meet in the next few days. They have an opportunity and a responsibility to articulate and campaign for a clear political alternative to the savage cuts which are being driven through.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Some things are beyond price

Amongst the discussion about Tory plans to dismember the NHS we must not lose sight of the impact of spending restrictions on our health service right now.



In that context I am sorry that in Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark our NHS does not currently fund IVF treatment (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23948124-leading-doctor-wants-the-nhs-to-fund-more-ivf-treatments.do).



I was born in the NHS, but as a prospective parent I needed the help of the NHS at conception as much as at birth. I cannot accept that I should tolerate the removal, now and in the future, of the opportunity I was given by the NHS.



This is a wealthy nation and we do not need to tolerate intolerable reductions in public services.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Four more years?

After Thursday's local (and national) elections, the labour movement needs to work out where, other than the ballot box, we direct the political momentum of half a million marching through London on 26 March.

With workers being laid off, and services closing, we cannot afford to wait for a (possible) Labour Government to start repairing the damage in 2015. Thursday's votes expressed opposition to cuts which are being made now.

Where Labour was the vehicle to express opposition to savage cuts in public spending - and particularly to the role of Liberal Democrats in facilitating these - the Party did well.

Where voters were offered electorally credible progressive options other than Labour, as by the SNP in Scotland or - on a smaller scale - the Greens in Brighton, they took them with some enthusiasm. The predictably miserable failure of candidates of the socialist left does not therefore signify that Labour can rely upon winning as a result of anger at the Coalition. A strategy of waiting for the next General Election wouldn't only be a betrayal of all those suffering now, it might well fail even in its own narrow electoral terms, whether because the Tories consolidate their own support at the expense of their Lib Dem stooges, or because other options to express disagreement with the Government grow and develop.

For socialists in the labour and trade union movement, our focus must be on placing demands upon Labour, both as local administrations and as a national opposition, alongside developing the campaigning and industrial response of our trade unions.

Ed Milliband's current slogan ("What do we want? Fewer cuts! When do we want them? Later!) is not only terminally unappealing but in any case fails to reflect the actual practice of Labour administrations in local government, balancing budgets at the expense of unbalancing local communities.

Now that there are Labour Council Leaders once more in many large cities, as well as many London boroughs, an alternative approach is readily available.

Labour Councils could spend the summer consulting local communities on their needs in order to draw up programmes for service delivery to provide a basis for "needs" budgets to be set in 2012.

In the autumn a nationwide series of marches could set out from Labour local authority areas to focus political pressure on the Government to make a financial settlement for local government which would enable these needs to be met, building towards a massive demonstration in London.

In the context of such a campaign a real discussion could take place about the viability of a significant number of authorities refusing to set budgets which did further social damage to our communities. Labour politicians could have a dialogue with trade union and community activists about the relative priority of their roles as administrators of the local state and leaders of local working people.

All of this may seem a long way from the here and now - but what are the other options? What do we, as trade unions, tell our members facing redundancy that we are doing with their political funds and our political influence?

Unfortunately, at present, it is not clear that UNISON Conference will be able to have a full debate about a political strategy for the largest local government union, since motions reflective of the policy of our Scottish Council (of support for politicians refusing to make cuts) have been ruled out of order.

If our trade unions will not make a clear and unequivocal demand that there must be no more cuts we shall be unlikely to exert the pressure that would open up the possibility that Labour might adopt a policy and campaigning stance closer to the policies of UNISON and the interests of our members.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Voting Labour is not enough

Today I will take a day off from picking up the pieces of cuts being made by a Labour Council in order to devote my annual leave to working for the election of Labour candidates.



Why? Tribal party loyalty plays a role - but, more importantly, I can see that the strength of the Labour vote in the local (and national) elections will be seen as the strength of opposition to Coalition cuts. Given the equivocal position adopted by the Party leadership just now - and the consequent compliance by Labour Councils with Tory cuts - a Labour vote may not be, in every situation, a straightforward "anti-cuts" vote (and some anti-cuts activists may support alternative candidates as a result),



However, with its many faults, the Labour Party is the national political alternative to the Tory Coalition. The Labour Party retains, (in spite of the efforts of many opponents of working class political representation - Tony Blair included), an organic link with te trade union movement - the only social force available to resist the Tory assault upon our welfare state.



Therefore I shall not simply vote Labour, but shall work for the election of Labour candidates.



However, that is not nearly enough. Since Labour Councils in 2012 will be no less likely to capitulate to the Tory cuts agenda than they were in 2011, those of us who care for our public services need not simply to vote Labour but - more importantly - to build and develop the anti-cuts movement that can and will put effective pressure on local politicians (and national trade union leaders) to step up opposition to the cuts.





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Coalition attack on Victorian values

UNISON's response to the Government's attempt to strip local authorities of various statutory duties is timely and appropriate (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2277).



This Government isn't content with pushing back to the 1980s, nor even the 1930s - it seeks to reverse the social reforms of the Victorian era!



The pattern of nineteenth century social reform was of campaigners eventually achieiving a permissive reform, creating a statutory power, and then - when that was not enough - securing a mandatory duty on public authorities to act to remedy a social problem.



The creation of these statutory duties, in areas ranging from public health to primary education, built the foundations of urban civilisation in the first industrial (and urban) nation on Earth. These were the foundations on which the twentieth century Welfare State was built.



But now, the twenty-first century Coalition is threatening to unravel what they describe as "red tape" but which is better seen as sellotape covering the cracks in our society caused by its being driven by greed and wealth. The Government see duties as "burdens" on local authorities and - having allowed several weeks for comments on duties developed over decades of social progress - have now withdrawn to consider how best to neutralise the role of the local state in protecting the interests of the citizen (http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/decentralisation/tacklingburdens/reviewstatutoryduties/)



UNISON's response to the Government's consultation rightly highlights the potentially devastating social consequences of removing statutory duties from local authorities.



We may now need to prepare for a line by line, duty by duty, defence of local government from a Government committed to its destruction.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support the Royal cleaners - not the Royal family

After a couple of hours leafletting for the elections I was pleased to come upon a copy of today's Morning Star - only to find a picture of the Queen and Prince Phil on the front cover! (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/content/view/full/104045).



To be fair to the comrades, this was to promote the laudable campaign by PCS for cleaners at the Royal Palaces to be paid at least the London living wage (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/culture_media_and_sport_occupational_association/campaigns/fair-pay-for-royal-cleaners.cfm).



If the thought that our incomparably wealthy royal family pays their cleaners £6.45 an hour, well below the "London living wage" of £7.85 an hour (established by Ken Livingstone and endorsed by his Tory successor) makes you splutter into your champagne and choke on your caviar (or otherwise interrupts whatever you are doing) then take some action.



Sign the online petition here - http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/royal-cleaners.html.



Then drop your MP an email and ask them to sign Early Day Motion 1696 (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/1696) to support the Royal cleaners. You can contact your MP online via http://www.writetothem.com/.





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A day off work

Having a day off work, myself and my son today visited the excellent Brighton Museum, where public servants were hard at work on a public holiday so that local people could enjoy art, culture and history.

We particularly enjoyed the Ancient Egyptian galleries where we could look back at a society where an oppressed population lived under hereditary rulers who themselves lived lives of incredible opulence.

How unlike our modern world…

This is a free country (not)

What on earth are the police doing arresting peaceful protesters ahead of the Royal Wedding? (http://bit.ly/iq0DRw) Those arrested include an actor who dresses up as an executioner (http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/patrick-macroidan-arrested-by-royal-wedding-cops/).

Do they think a gaggle of fairly ineffectual anarchists and some activists whose activism consists largely of street theatre are a threat or a potential embarrassment?

The antics of some of those who think radicalism means having a swear word on your t-shirt and a balaclava covering your face were an irritation on March 26th (and gave the police the excuse to detain and arrest the effective and responsible protesters of UK Uncut).

However, the "black bloc" lacks the capacity to pose any real threat tomorrow - and as for an embarrassment, well we are about to witness an entire nation come to a standstill to mark the nuptials of a future hereditary head of state and, last time I checked the time, it wasn't still the Middle Ages.

I would say we ought to be past being embarrassed.

Full marks to John McDonnell, MP, for speaking out against this nonsense (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381517/Royal-Wedding-security-Scotland-Yard-swoops-squatters-plan-disrupt.html).

Civil liberties are never defended by supporting the popular, the sensible or the acceptable.

If people were planning stunts to disrupt the Royal wedding then, much as every republican will sympathise with their motivation, I would say that was a poor decision in terms of priorities.

There are better things to do right now to defend our public services and Welfare State.

However, to paraphrase Voltaire (or perhaps not - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire), we may think the anarchos and their hangers on are pillocks but we should defend to the death their right to be so.

The trade union movement should always be in the front line of the fight to defend civil liberty and to oppose the abuse of the power of the state, because - since, ultimately, we organise the force that could change this rotten society for the better - every attack upon freedom that the state can get away with will become a weapon in the arsenal to be used against our movement should the occasion demand.

And that's the answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this post.

What the police are doing with pre-emptive arrests of essentially unthreatening individuals is testing out the measures they might one day want to use seriously against the serious opponents of this unjust society and its consequences.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The human impact of the cuts - and what we need to do

This afternoon, as the nation prepares to spend a day celebrating the marriage of an upper class twit to a wanabee upper class twit, out here in reality the cuts are biting hard.
In spite of months of effort on the part of the trade union, I have today seen a good UNISON member made compulsorily redundant - even though UNISON had identified alternative employment opportunities which the employer had failed to explore.
Of course there may be a further legal remedy months down the road. But activists know both how hard it can be now to get a case before a tribunal with union backing, and how meagre the compensation for unfair dismissal can be. Essentially, a compulsory redundancy is a defeat for the trade union (without in any sense being a victory for the employer, since it is public service which will suffer in the end).
I am driven to great anger when I see a dedicated and effective public servant thrown out of work as I have today. Every Councillor who believes they took "hard decisions" when they voted to make cuts should realise that the truly "hard decisions" are those made by redundant workers having to work out how to make ends meet.
This isn't the first such instance - and certainly won't be the last. Whilst I wholeheartedly welcome and support UNISON's campaign against the candidates of the parties of the Coalition Government in next week's local elections (outside London) we need to remember that Labour Councils have bent the knee before George Osborne and are cutting back just as are Tories and Lib Dems.
UNISON needs to stand up against all the attacks our members face, and from whichever quarter they come. We need to do so locally and nationally.
We face a strategic choice. We could batten down the hatches and try to negotiate retreats and concessions dressed up in rhetorical opposition to cuts which we will in fact have accepted.
Or we can organise the maximum effective resistance achievable in order to mitigate the impact of the cuts through resistance rather than collaboration.
Regular readers (Sid and Doris Borderline-Trot) won't be suprised to learn that I favour the latter, which I think means we must do the following.
First, we must build union organisation at a local level - but not as an end in itself. Organisation is not an objective, but a tool to achieve our objective, which is to defend the interests of our members and of workers generally. Therefore, alongside building organisation we must try to build the confidence and combativity of our members.
Secondly, we must maximise effective solidarity with the forthcoming co-ordinated national strike action on 30 June, timetabling any official action we can to coincide and organising support for pickets and protests for those who are taking action.
Thirdly, we must take to UNISON Conference the demand that UNISON must lead the next nationally co-ordinated action, and must lead it as the next step in a sustained campaign of action with the objective of defeating the Government. Pensions may be the causas belli but the battle which will be joined is over the whole future of public services and the Welfare State.
Finally, since we want a leadership which builds union organisation because we want to fight to defend our interests (as opposed to a leadership which will talk a good fight in the hope of sustaining union organisation) it is all the more important that UNISON activists get the vote out in the current NEC elections - for the candidates of the left .
(I confidently predict that, with more than a million members yet to cast their votes, there is everything yet to play for.)
Anyone who has some spare time on their hands tomorrow should find plenty of union work waiting to be done...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Remember the dead - fight for the living (do your bit online!)

Today is Workers' Memorial Day, a day to remember those killed at work (http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-19529-f0.cfm).



I won't be able to attend any of the local events listed on the TUC website (http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-11563-f0.cfm#national).



While our movement cares about health and safety, the Coalition Government does not - it plans to cut the Health and Safety Executive's budget by more than a third with hundreds of job losses.



PCS have condemned plans to withdraw unannounced safety inspections across large areas of the economy to implement these cuts (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/61070394-950E-49E8-8D3CA9F2F5F34D96).



UNISON has also warned of the likely impact of these cuts - and drawn the lesson that we need to step up organising for safety in the workplace (http://www.unison.org.uk/activists/pages_view.asp?did=12375).



Those of us who cannot get out to any of today's events can do our bit online by visiting the Government's "red tape challenge" website (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/home/index/) to put the case against weakening or removing safety regulations.



To comment on health and safety regulations go to http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/health-and-safety/. Alongside predictable ill-informed complaints from "businesspeople" irritated that the law requires them to pay attention to the wellbeing of others, there are serious contributions in defence of sensible regulations.



It's not red tape that worries me as much as the hazard warning tape which will go up around the scene of the next avoidable workplace fatality.



Take a few minutes today to join that online debate - and tell the Coalition to keep their hands off our safety regulations!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

TUPE or not TUPE?

Privatisation is central to the purpose of neoliberal Governments (like this one and the last one).

It's in the nature of capitalism to exhaust opportunities for the making of profit and to experience periodic crises "of overproduction" as capital which cannot profitably be invested is hoarded, and goods and services cannot find a market.

The self-correcting mechanism of capitalism is a recession which drives down wages, and forces the least profitable firms out of business, eventually restoring profitability at the expense of the wasted years and ruined lives of mass unemployment.

However, another opportunity for the capitalist system is to open up new areas for private profit - and ever since the rulers of Western Europe were forced to concede welfare states in fear of their own people (and the Red Army) - profit hungry privateers have gazed greedily at the possibilities to profit from public services.

The application of the EU Acquired Rights Directive and therefore the "Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations" (TUPE) to public services in the 1990s was intended to smooth the path of privatisation by protecting (to some extent) workforce conditions in the hope of neutralising union opposition.

This worked "well" in Lambeth, where in 1997 we saw what was then the largest single privatisation in the history of English local government. TUPE encouraged union officials to accept privatisation from New Labour. TeamLambeth (as it was) was a sorry failure and TUPE failed to prevent the betrayal of the privatised workforce and the communities depending on their services. Councillors haven't learned anything from this either locally or nationally, as we face still further privatisations.

Blairite advocates of privatisation may think that TUPE means that the workers will be ok. They should experience the reality.

In "protecting" our conditions, TUPE turns us into chattels to be "transferred" against our will from one boss to another in a modern day slave auction - and sometimes people fall through the cracks in this legal "protection".

As bad as it is to have the identity of your employer changed against your will without legal remedy it is even worse to disappear into a legal limbo where no one will admit that they employ you.

Thanks to my employer's "open mind" about opening up public services to private profit I am and have been dealing with workers left in limbo when their former employer tells them they are being "TUPE transferred" to another employer who says they're not.

This puts blameless individuals into a Kafkaesque world where everyone knows that someone ought to be paying them (or paying redundancy) but no one will admit liability.

Hats off to Barnet UNISON (http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/) who are showing our movement that it is possible to have a trade dispute - and take action - against a change in the identity of your employer.

The answer to privatisation is not to rely on TUPE. It is to fight.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Dog barks, caravan moves, ostrich stays put, oblivious

It's not often, in the blogosphere, that one is treated to a semi-official "ostrich-eye view" of internal trade union controversy (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2011/04/dogs-bark-but-caravan-moves-on.html).



Without quite being able to mention the name Yunus Bakhsh the anonymous user of cliches over at UNISON Active draws this conclusion about the order of reinstatement made in a case of proven victimisation of a trade union activist;



"In such circumstances the outcome of litigation is of no significance to the union."



The success of a victimised union activist in securing an order for reinstatement is, on the contrary, of significance for all trade unionists.



Ostriches, by hiding their heads in the sand, do of course, put themselves in a position, at one and the same time, where they can see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.



What does that remind me of?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Dented shield or alternative programme?

Martin Wicks yesterday published a useful critique of what he sees as the approach of the trade unions - and UNISON in particular - to confronting the cuts (http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/after-the-march-the-return-of-the-%e2%80%9cdented-shield%e2%80%9d/).
He pulls apart two related aspects of our response, first, the demands we place upon employers (with particular reference to Labour local authorities, upon whom we are - as an affiliated trade union - in a particular position to place demands), and, second, how we work co-operatively with employers making cuts (and what that means for our role in the anti-cuts movement).
In a nutshell, Wicks is critical of our refusal - at a national level - to demand that Councils (and in particular Labour Councils) do not make cuts and sees this reflected in "partnership" practice locally, where branches are surrendering pay or conditions in return for (unreliable?) promises of "no compulsory redundancies" which amount to acquiescence in cuts and therefore isolate us from the anti-cuts movement.
Both aspects of this problem reflect the debilitating perception that there is no alternative but to make cuts (albeit we may query their "speed" or "depth").
The overall impact of this perception is a return to the "dented shield" advocated by Neil Kinnock a quarter century ago - where Labour clings on to office wherever it can and the trade unions cling on to the hope that a Labour Government will arrive soon to rescue us.
I think these criticisms (although perhaps not so much that comparison) are well made and commend the original article to you. However, I think the conclusions are overly pessimistic because the analysis misses a couple of important points, one about local activism and one about national policy.
Locally, there are UNISON branches opposing every cut (as best they may) and responding to job losses with resistance rather than concessions. The best recent example of action being taken in this cause is the joint strike by UNISON and NUT members in Tower Hamlets (http://falseeconomy.org.uk/campaigns/event/tower-hamlets-demo-march-nut-and-unison-on-strike-against-the-cuts). However - even where such action cannot be delivered locally - there are many more examples of branches taking a principled position to resist attacks on jobs and conditions of service.
These glimmers of local activity are consistent with the formal national policy position, which is that spending cuts are not necessary (as set out in UNISON's alternative budget) (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1890).
The material is available, from UNISON's national policy and the local practice of branches and activists, to construct a coherent alternative approach to that criticised by Wicks.
We can make the case that there is no "economic necessity" for the current deficit reduction programme, and certainly not for the cuts. These are a political choice and require a political response.
The grave disappointments of the last Government indicate that our political response should not be unquestioning support for the inadequate policies of the Labour Party. Voting out Coalition candidates is necessary but insufficient.
Instead we must redouble our efforts to build, on the basis of the splendid response on 26 March, the emerging anti-cuts movement, both as a bulwark of opposition to cuts in the here and now and as a force to shift the centre of political gravity leftwards.
It follows from this that we should avoid approaches which, in accepting cuts, isolate us from opposition to cuts. It also follows that we should unashamedly oppose the cuts and call upon all those charged to make them not to do so.
These debates will need to be had at Conference in June - although, as ever, we'll have to have some discussions with Standing Orders Committees about just what it is we can debate.
Those who want UNISON to fight as hard for the future of the Welfare State as it will for the future of UNISON also need to get the vote out now for the candidates of the left in the current NEC elections .
We need to build an alternative approach for UNISON, not in opposition, but based upon the best of our current response, nationally and locally.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

No to Cuts (absolutely) and No to AV (just about)

Having had a couple of days away from the daily diet of cuts and redundancies, I have had a chance to think about my answer to the question, “how are you voting in the referendum?”

Initially my sympathies were with the (under-reported) “Meh to AV” camp. With hundreds of job losses in my branch alone and threats to vital public services in the here and now, never mind the rolling back of mass access to higher education, the intended destruction of the National Health Service and comprehensive education and the imposition of a benefits regime bearing comparison with the early Victorian New Poor Law, it almost seemed that spending time thinking about the referendum was a near criminal waste of time and energy.

Indeed, it is because of the vicious class war being waged by the Government of millionaires against millions of working people that I have no sympathy with the idea that there would be anything wrong with casting a vote in the referendum because of its presumed impact upon the struggles being waged around us (and by us). If by voting either “yes” or “no” we could be sure to weaken the Coalition’s attacks on us ahead of the next General Election, then I would certainly say that the urgency of our current need would take precedence over any argument about this or that voting system.

However, this is not the case. A “no” will damage the Liberal Democrats, a “yes” the Tories. Neither party will willingly precipitate an early General Election as a result. Neither result will, of itself, give heart or confidence to the struggle against the cuts, which matters far more than the outcome of the referendum. I hate Cameron far more even than Clegg because I know the monkey only does the bidding of the organ grinder – and because I know what Tories are (lower than vermin) – but that emotional response isn’t enough of a reason to cast a vote one way or another.

A thoughtful response to the question of how to vote in the referendum should depend upon what you think democracy is for. I think that the point of democracy, of “rule by the people” is that the people should have power over Governments, which we should be able to exercise peacefully and lawfully when possible – as opposed to the way in which our ancestors had to try to hold the executive to account two centuries ago (what Hobsbawm called “collective bargaining by riot”).

I am not interested in the idea that the purpose of an election is to secure some “mathematically accurate” reflection of popular opinion. Elections can’t do that. Opinions are multi-dimensional and cannot be reduced to a preference for one political party or another. Even if they could, that would, I think, miss the point of democracy.

The most important thing we can do in any election is sack our Government or our elected representative. The point of democracy is to secure the accountability of power and therefore, the electoral system which makes it easiest to oust an incumbent (individual or Government) is the best system from the point of view of the working class (a calculation which might change in a future society but is best remembered whilst we live in this one). (Incidentally this is also the argument for the election of all those union officials who negotiate on behalf of our members, but that’s another blog post…)

Of the flawed options which confront us in next week’s referendum I think that the status quo of “First Past the Post” is marginally more likely to assist in achieving this purpose of democracy. I don’t say there’s much in it – there isn’t, but since there are only two boxes to tick in the referendum, my vote will be “No” (in line with the policy agreed by the National Committee of the Labour Representation Committee, of which I am a member).

I understand, and sympathise with, the motivations of some of those on the left who will vote “Yes” in the hope of an electoral system which may encourage voters on the left to give first preferences to the left of Labour, secure in the knowledge that they won’t thereby “let the Tories in” – and I can see that such displays of socialist views by a proportion of our electorate could exercise a positive impact upon Party policy and practice (although of course the UKIP first preferences from a larger chunk of Tory votes might pull the centre of political gravity even more firmly in the opposite direction).

However, unless someone can demonstrate to me that AV makes it easier to oust a Government (a proposition for which I can see no convincing evidence) then I will hold my nose and vote “no” on Thursday 5 May.

What's going on?

As happens sometimes to a Branch Secretary, I was asked today by an active and effective shop steward "what's going on?"
Ever the labour historian, I quoted Harold Wilson and said that, "what's going on is that I'm going on" (and on, and on - as regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger can attest).
What is also going on is the hardest work by dedicated trade union activists, with and without facility time, that I have seen or known in a quarter century on the front line of the class struggle.
I see people pushing themselves past their limits daily as we try to deal with mass redundancies and madcap privatisation whilst the daily diet of disciplinary and sickness cases continues.
Good friends and comrades are reaching their limits - and sometimes even falling out in consequence - because it takes a great deal to handle the sheer injustice and damage of these Tory cuts. (And to every Labour Councillor who says how hard it has been to "take hard decisions" I say - spend a day with a shop steward representing those on the receiving end before you expect any sympathy from me!)
In part, and as worthless as this may be, I simply want to record here my solidarity with and admiration for the thousands of lay trade union activists who are bearing the brunt of the Tory Coalition's attacks upon the welfare state - and are doing all we can to inspire a fightback against these.
For those who foresaw a "war of attrition" - you were right. And all the attrition is us.
For those who advocated "guerilla tactics" you were right. We have no choice but to fight back however we may.
But you were also wrong.
What we need now - what will answer the crying need that (to be blunt) leaves some of us crying just now - is national action.
As a leader of two and a half thousand workers I can do so much and - with the back up of a brilliant, committed team of activists - I will do all I can.
As a small part of a movement of six million workers, who put 500,000 on the streets of London in one of the largest demonstrations in the history of our movement, the branch of which I am proud to be a member can do much more.
The question isn't really "what's going on?" The question is "what ought to be going on?" The answer is that we need to build and build and build for unified national action against the attacks on our pensions at the earliest practicable date.
Unless and until our movement is led into decisive conflict with the Government, one element of the consequences of the "war of attrition," which is being prosecuted so successfully against us, will continue to be the despair, disputes and demoralisation that are so damaging to us at a local level.
To activists I say, see beyond the factors which may set us against each other for what our members need is a unified fightback.
To fellow NEC members I say, now is the testing time - let those who will lead a fight provide that leadership.
And all UNISON members in London can choose now whether it should be me who is "going on" as your NEC member.
To strengthen our union please support the candidates of the left.
What's going on? I would like to say that "I'm going on" - but that is for the members to decide!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Stop Lansley - Save the NHS

The "pause" in progressing the Lansley bill to end the National Health Service will only be a pause for breath unless we step up campaigning to defend the NHS (http://www.unison.org.uk/ournhs/).



The LRC website today has some useful links to campaign resources (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/save-the-nhs-kill-lansleys-bill/), including details of a demonstration after work on Tuesday 17 May in Central London(http://l-r-c.org.uk/events/detail/kill-lansleys-bill-march-to-save-the-nhs/).



Those of us who are union activists in other sectors need, somehow, to find time from fighting job losses to motivate and mobilise our members to defend the NHS - we also need the broadest unity in this cause, which must (for those of us with Labour Councils) mean taking time out from arguing with Labour employers about cuts and privatisation in order to stand side by side with them to save our health service.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Now you've upset teacher...

When I was at school I knew the differences between the three teaching unions. The National Union of Teachers (NUT), including my mother, was the progressive union to which my socialist and communist teachers belonged.

The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NAS/UWT) matched the NUT for sectional militancy but was less progressive on issues of educational policy (retaining in those days a somewhat retrograde position on corporal punishment that led, years later, to my friend and comrade Dick North (late of the Inner London Teachers' Association - ILTA) to refer to them as the "floggers' union").

Then there was AMMA, as it then was, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. This was the former grammar school teachers' union and it wasn't militant (to put it mildly). Those teachers I knew to be in it as a child were, I assumed, Tories.

Scroll forward thirty plus years and AMMA is now ATL (the Association of Teachers and Lecturers)(http://www.atl.org.uk/) and its Conference has just voted for a strike ballot over the Government's attack on public sector pensions (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23942757-teachers-union-calls-for-its-first-strike-vote-in-row-over-pensions.do).

This is a political earthquake to match any seismic activity in Japan this year. This isn't just a union that isn't eager to strike. This is a union that hasn't taken strike action before.

This Government have driven to strike action people who chose a trade union on the basis that they didn't want ever to have to take such action.

Having spent today in meetings about more than 200 of the more than 500 redundancies that my employer will propose in the coming financial year (on top of 240 redundancies - and the loss of more than 300 agency staff - up to the end of March), you might think I'd have no time to think about the attack on our pensions.

Think again.

We face a wholesale attack upon our welfare state. There are job cuts, a pay freeze, privatisation - and attacks on pensions, which are - to a considerable extent - intended to facilitate that privatisation.

We are at war with an illegitimate Government which has no mandate for its attempt to roll back the gains of the postwar settlement. We must pick our fights because they will use the full force of the state to crush us if they can. Cameron is Thatcher on speed.

The national fight to defend public service pensions is the battle we can win. The decision of ATL reflects the determination, at UNISON's last NEC meeting, of colleagues with whom I don't often see eye to eye.

If we can't join a strike on 30 June we need to do all we can to support it (as we embark upon a ballot which must surely see us commence action no later than the week of Tory Party Conference). Where there are local trade disputes, let us strike on that date. Where there aren't, let us press Headteachers to close schools, and where they won't then let us make clear that, law or no law, we will give total support to workers who comply with the higher law - thou shalt not cross a picket line.

Let 30 June be the opening salvo in a battle to defend public service pensions - and let the end of that battle be the day when Cameron, like Thatcher before him, is driven out of Downing Street.

This is the battleground on which we can defeat our enemy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Strike action in prospect in Manchester against job losses

Whoever thought that UNISON members in Manchester did not have the leadership and confidence necessary to fight job losses - you were wrong! Great news from Tony Wilson is that members of his branch are set upon strike action and are currently balloting. UNISON Branch Secretary Tony Wilson said; “Not only is the process needlessly making people compulsory redundant it is causing widespread concern and lack of morale across the workforce. The employer’s claims of increased organisational effectiveness lack any credibility. The process is extremely labour intensive and is actually delaying easy cost savings in some areas. The organisation has failed to consider the impacts changes could have on service provision. Consequently we are urging our members to Vote YES to strike action”. Theresa Griffin UNISON Regional Organiser added; “UNISON members do not take industrial action lightly but we have been forced to ballot our members due to the intransigence of this employer, however, UNISON will seek to avoid this industrial action and has sought early talks with the employer.”

Speak up for Equality

In an attempt to give a populist gloss to a programme of deregulation driven entirely by the interests of big business, the Tory Government have set up their "red tape challenge" website where you can share your views on what regulations should be scrapped.



There doesn't seem to be an option to call for improved legislative protection for workers or consumers - since, as far as this Government is concerned, legislation to protect the rights and welfare of working people is precisely the sort of "red tape" which holds back profits!



Whilst this exercise in CONsultation is primarily a device to assure Daily Mail readers that the Government sees them as more than voting fodder guaranteed to back politicians who actually take their lead from the CBI, there is one aspect so outrageous that it's worth spending the few minutes it takes to respond.



The Government is treating the Equality Act 2010 as part of the consultation - as if it had the same status as the range of secondary legislation, regulations and statutory instruments which are also the subject of consultation.



Since a savage programme of public spending cuts will inevitably hit hardest those who are already vulnerable, it's no shock that the Government want to water down requirements to give effect to commitments to equality. That's why all existing specific equality duties on local authorities have been withdrawn and not replaced (http://www.unison.org.uk/equality/pages_view.asp?did=12698).



It tells you all you need to know about the Tories that they see a simple requirement not to discriminate as pesky "red tape" - to tell them what you think visit http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalities/.





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Justice for Smiley Culture

I was pleased today to be able join the well attended March for Justice for Smiley Culture (http://bit.ly/fOguNo), which found its way from the Wandsworth Road, over Lambeth Bridge, to New Scotland Yard. I was particularly pleased to take my turn carrying the Lambeth UNISON banner on the march, as decided by our Branch Committee.



Thousands of local (and some not-so-local) people were united in the sadly familiar demand that there must surely be a truly independent inquiry into a questionable death in police custody. As a trade unionist in Brixton I recall so many campaigns for justice in such circumstances, of which one of the most recent is the campaign for Sean Rigg (http://www.seanriggjusticeandchange.com/).



On the march I also learned of campaigns for justice of which I had not heard before - such as that for Habib "Paps" Ullah (http://justice4paps.wordpress.com/) and Julian Webster, killed in Birmingham in 2009.



There are clearly too many cases in which those taken into custody die in circumstances which give rise to legitimate questions, to which answers are not then forthcoming. Most - but not all - of these cases seem to involve black people.



Lambeth UNISON was on today's demonstration because this problem is indeed so sadly familiar to us. As a trade union branch we have been clear that the safety of local people is our concern, and that unexplained deaths in police custody are very much an issue for our trade union.



I was proud today to have been part of a trade union delegation on a demonstration addressing the pressing concerns of the local community. I hope that the trade union movement will support the call for change made today outside New Scotland Yard.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions - on the road to industrial action

More than 130 UNISON activists attended this afternoon's pension campaign briefing in UNISON's Greater London Region, with a wide representation across service groups and from many branches.

Following a thorough briefing on the details of the changes implemented and proposed by the Coalition Government, the briefing moved on to discuss how we shall organise our response.

Every branch shall have (at least one) "pensions champion", who will be trained and briefed to understand the changes and proposals as they impact on the pension scheme(s) in which the branch has members.

These will be supplemented by "pensions contacts" (ideally) in every workplace in the branch. These "champions" and "contacts" need not be existing officers and stewards - indeed the role of "contact" in particular may be a relatively easy way to engage members who came out on their first demonstration on 26 March.

To keep up to date with the pensions campaign activists should check in regularly at http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/protectour.asp and encourage members to do the same.

The Region are keen for branches to identify members willing and able to speak to the media as representative members of public sector pension schemes, as it is vital that we contest the perception, eagerly engendered by the Daily Mail (and other vile Tory rags) that our pensions are "gold-plated" by having the real voices of real people ready to answer the lies of our enemies. Members who are willing to do this should approach their branch, and branches should approach their Regional Organiser for support.

The meeting was briefed about preparations for industrial action and about the genuine and serious need to update membership records. An experienced and respected health activist made the important point that branches need to be prompted to begin discussions at an early point with management about the requirements for "life and limb" cover in the event of strike action - not least as this will underline the seriousness of our intent to act.

There was also some welcome discussion of our tactics in the event of industrial action - a discussion which needs to be continued on the widest basis. We need to accept both that a single day's strike, and "action short of strike action" are not, of themselves, actions which will force a Government to retreat. This does not, however mean that both one day strike action and action short of strike action may not form part of a programme of action designed to achieve our objective. These tactical decisions will eventually have to be taken by a relatively small group of people at HQ, but they must be informed by the widest debate amongst our membership - and this needs to be happening now.

I was struck by the fact that, amongst those who contributed to this debate were myself and my friend April Ashley, who are standing on the left slate in the current NEC elections. Those NEC candidates in the room being backed by the "leadership loyalist" slate simply had nothing to say on this question.

This did reinforce for me the point that the key difference between the serious united left, who stand "for a fighting and democratic union" and those who stand against us in support of a union led by its paid officials, is that whilst we all talk a good fight in the election addresses which we (or someone) writes - it is the candidates of the left who have a proven track record of actually fighting to defend our members.

Another area for discussion was the possible strike action on 30 June, when it may be that members of the NUT, PCS and possibly other unions, will follow the example already set by UCU members by striking against the Government's attacks on our pensions.

Activists from schools were particularly concerned that we should find ways to offer advice to our members which would underline our moral support for such action, if it is taken, even if logistical and other difficulties prevent us from taking action of the same kind on the same date.

I suggested that, should the action on 30 June proceed, we use it as a major part of our own campaign, by organising (for example) lunchtime protests in solidarity with those taking strike action on the day.

Before then, the next important date Regionally is likely to be Wednesday 25 May, when there is likely to be an afternoon briefing on the pensions campaign and industrial action procedures following a meeting of the Regional Council in the morning.

I was assured by a member of the Regional Management Team that they would be doing all they could to help the lay leadership ensure that we have a quorum at that Regional Council meeting (achieving which will clearly be an important indicator that we are both serious about developing our organisation for this coming struggle and that we are capable of doing so in the Region).

It would appear that we all now agree that we shall no longer be able to rely simply upon "guerilla tactics" to respond to the Coalition's "war of attrition" against public services and public servants, and that we all now accept that we must gear up to take national action to defend our pensions (both as an end in itself and as the only viable national trade dispute it is possible to have on a joint union basis).

This is certainly the message I took from our General Secretary at this week's NEC.

From all of this, I draw two conclusions about what UNISON activists on the left in London should be doing. First, we must do all we can to maximise turnout at the Regional Council and the briefing on 25 May.

Secondly, we must also do all we can to encourage members to vote in the current NEC elections and - in so doing - to vote for the candidates of the serious left who will put deeds as well as words into the fight to save our pensions (http://unisonleft.wordpress.com/).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A modest victory for trade union rights

It's worth buying today's Morning Star for a concise summary of the main points of the court decision in the case of RMT v Serco (available online in full at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/226.html) about which I have blogged before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2011/03/legal-victory-puts-strike-action-back.html).



This case has loosened the legal shackles around our unions somewhat, in part by clarifying that, in describing which workers are covered by a dispute, we need not use particular descriptions chosen by the employer.



This doesn't though mean that we don't still have to offer a description, nor that we don't have to ensure the maximum accuracy of membership records if we are to minimise the chance of legal challenges frustrating democratic decisions to take action.



I hope that every UNISON member reading this is already aware of the steps being taken in your branch to check and verify the details of our membership records. Now more than ever we need to prepare for action.



Individual members can also now update our details online (http://www.unison.org.uk/help/index.asp) in order to help the union get to a position where we can take action.



Of course, since it is our human right collectively to withdraw our labour we shouldn't have to be jumping through all these hoops, which is one reason why UNISON branches should prioritise and support Conference motion 80 "Defend Trade Union Rights" from the Havering branch.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

If it moves, privatise it?

UNISON's criticisms of plans for more private social work practices are spot on.

I particularly share the sentiment that "Most social workers went into the job so they could support people, not so they could set up a business" - very true! In fact, I'd go further, anyone who went into social work so that could set up a business is not the sort of person I'm happy to see supporting vulnerable people.

To see the barking-mad right wing Coalition promoting this nonsense is no shock, but the role of Labour Councils in colluding with this is a sad reminder that it was under New Labour that the scourge of privatisation was admitted into the heart of public service delivery in this way.

Barnet UNISON are setting a fine example about how to respond to privatisation - with not just a general campaign against privatisation, but also a specific trade dispute about the desire of local Council workers to remain employed by the local authority.

The tendrils of private profit do not seek to penetrate the public sector in order to improve the experience of service users, but to suck out public funds paid for by taxpayers in order to provide value for shareholders.

If you haven't already taken action to support UNISON's Million Voices campaign - now would be a good time.

Libya - stop the bombing! (Says UNISON)

I'm pleased to see that, as we were promised earlier this afternoon, the first official online report from today's UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) meeting concerns our call for an end to military action in Libya (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2264).



The key point is that UNISON is calling for a peaceful solution and a cessation of military Action. I had intended suggesting an amendment to the statement clarifying opposition to the NATO military action, but accepted the argument of our General Secretary that a call for that action to stop immediately more than does the job that could be done by any statement of opposition.



It is absolutely right that UNISON should adopt this position of opposition to the military intervention in Libya, and should make it clear. Not only are we part of a global movement with a well-founded historic opposition to war, we are also the people in the forefront of savage cuts in vital public services driven forward by a Government which can find millions at the drop of a hat to underwrite military intervention.



We should continue to stand for "welfare not warfare."

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The long and winding road

I'll blog my full report of today's UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) meeting after I have circulated it to London branches. For now I'll deal with some highlights.

Dave Prentis was clear with the NEC that "we are on the road to industrial action" in relation to the various attacks upon our pensions which have their origins in the deliberate policies of the Coalition Government.

He emphasised the importance of the widest unity, of the need for sustained action (beyond a single "day of action") and of the need to prepare our members to give resounding support for such action - and to prepare our membership records to give us the greatest possible confidence in the face of likely legal challenges to our ballot(s).

In this context, he was clear that UNISON would not be in a position to call strike action on 30 June, the date being mooted for action by the NUT and PCS. As I said at the meeting, I wish we were in a position now to ballot for national action on that date, but accept, regretfully, that we are not.

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Trotwatcher) will know that I have not been uncritical of the tardiness of our response - particularly to the decision, taken in June of last year, to reduce the value of all our pensions by changing the basis on which they are uprated. I wish we were further ahead on our trip down the "road to industrial action."

However, now that the Union leadership is moving in a positive direction on this issue it is most important that we encourage this and focus our fire - and our ire - on the Government. In this regard it was positive that Dave made clear that UNISON would express support for the cause of those taking action on 30 June, even if we were not in a position to join them on that date.

Dave seemed to have expected some opposition on this point, and subsequent contributions to debate from some of his supporters expressed suprise at the absence of a "polarised debate" (even as one or two did their best to polarise by taking issue with things that hadn't been said).

From a wide range of views, NEC members expressed support for sustained industrial action and a recognition of what is at stake in this dispute. Defeat in this battle could spell an early end for Cameron and Clegg, which means that they will throw everything at us.

If we are to move forward in unity, the General Secretary and the whole NEC need to give confidence about our seriousness about taking action at an early and appropriate time - and must involve activists in a wide-ranging debate about our strategy and tactics.

We must also build and sustain unity across the movement, including organisations (such as the RCN) with little history of struggle, as well as those (like PCS and the NUT) who are, admirably, in a position to move ahead of our timetable.

Our first steps must be to educate our members about this attack and make the administrative preparations for a ballot. We also need to think in practical ways about how UNISON can show support to action on 30 June if we cannot be a full part of that action.

This is the biggest issue facing us as a national trade union.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Learning from Organising?

In preparation for Wednesday's meeting of the UNISON NEC I was talking with my old friend and comrade, Roger Bannister, who drew to my attention some content of the draft of the NEC Annual Report for Conference, which we will be considering at the meeting.



The content referred to the "Three Companies Project" about which I have blogged before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2009/10/threes-company.html) - more than once (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2009/11/online-report-from-three-companies.html).



The project was a joint initiative with the American Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to organise employees of three particular global contractors raking in profits from the privatisation of "support services" in the public sector.



I say "was" as I learned for the first time from reading the draft of our report to Conference that the project had come to a "successful conclusion" in March, a piece of information I had not learned as a member of our Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee (the relevant strategic committee of the NEC) - and which has not yet received much publicity.



The website set up to promote the project (http://unison3companies.org/) has little to say on this topic - the latest post there is from November.



The NEC has been promised, but has not yet received, an assessment of the effectiveness of the project.



There is certainly a need to organise contractors' workforces, whose unfair pay and conditions contribute to super-profits for global corporations. This need is expressed persuasively on the project's website (http://unison3companies.org/what-unison-is-doing/) - what UNISON now needs from this Project is a thorough assessment of what we have learned.



It is usually true that we learn more from our failures and mistakes than from our successes. The correct test of the value of a pilot project is not it's success but it's contribution to our learning.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

D&O Committee report

Today's meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee (D&O) of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) dealt briefly with Conference business with little controversy.



The Committee is recommending that the NEC oppose rule amendments which would require candidates for the NEC or for a Service Group Executive (SGE) to be nominated by their own branch and at least one other rather than, as at present, a minimum of two branches.



Whilst I can see arguments in favour of the proposal - that those we elect to national positions should have strong local roots, I oppose this on balance for practical reasons (what if the nomination form from the candidate's own branch were ruled out on a technicality?) as well as from a sense that, in the interests of democracy, it should be as easy as is reasonable to secure a place on a ballot paper.



The Committee also opposed Bolton's attempt to place a two year time limit on certain internal disciplinary sanctions, rather than the five year limit which the NEC itself is recommending. Although I personally support Bolton on this, the Committee having recently had the debate, I did not argue today.



The D&O is however recommending that the NEC support a rule amendment from Birmingham which would give disciplinary panels of the NEC the power, which they currently lack, to "censure" a member. This equivalent to a disciplinary warning is a welcome proposed addition to our Rule Book.



I can think of several cases where the availability of a moderate but non-negligible sanction could potentially have avoided a lot of grief and wasted effort.



Assuming the NEC agrees these recommendations it will then be for Conference to decide.



At the end of the meeting I asked about arrangements to lift the Regional supervision of our Newham branch. I was assured that all that was needed for this to happen was a final report from the Region to Head Office.



Let's hope that report is already written and arrives tomorrow.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

An index of hypocrisy

A hat tip to this morning's Morning Star for alerting me to the excellent work of the TUC in exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the Tory Coalition when it comes to indexation (http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-19467-f0.cfm).



As of this month, the annual uprating of occupational pensions, benefits and tax credits will take place in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI). The CPI tends to rise more slowly than the RPI both because of the composition of the "index" (what's included and what isn't) and because of the method of calculation.



The impact on my pension (to take a personal example for once) is that it's now worth between 15 and 20% less over the course of my lifetime than it would have been had this change not been made.



In an unprecedented attack upon workers, even the previously accrued value of past service has been reduced, stealing from us what we thought we already had as well as reducing the value of what we have yet to earn.



Still, you might think, it's not a shock that Tories rob workers (nor that Lib Dems help them) - but at least Chancellor Osborne is a consistent advocate of the CPI as a measure of inflation.



Only he isn't.



Student loan repayment rates will continue to rise with the faster rising RPI rather than the CPI.



The only thing that's consistent about this Government of hypocrites is a consistent desire to do down working people.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON NEC elections - vote for the left!

Ballot papers are hitting doormats now in the UNISON NEC elections (apart from those of you with those irritating vertical letterboxes hinged at the top whose ballot papers are in envelopes folded amongst junk mail and leaflets for pizzas because you don't have a proper letterbox!)

I shall use my votes for the candidates of the left (myself included) because now is precisely the time for a more combative and effective leadership for our trade union.

From the election addresses which will be all that most members know of the candidates asking for their votes, it will no doubt appear that every candidate is a socialist firebrand dedicating their every waking hour to the struggle against the Tory led Coalition Government.

However the candidates standing to achieve a fighting and democratic union are those with a proven track record of action rather than only words. These activists are the sort of people we need amongst our national leadership if we are to rise to the challenges facing UNISON in 2011.

Good luck comrades!

Prentis pledges to fight

Dave Prentis' speech to UNISON Health Conference is available online (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2248).



All UNISON members - not just health workers - should pay attention not just to Dave's denunciation of the Coalition's attack on the NHS but also when he says;



"we will build an alliance of all public service unions to break the pay freeze, protect our pensions, stop the cuts."



These are strong words well meant - and amount to a pledge which we must collectively redeem over the coming months.



Our job as activists in these circumstances is twofold. First we must build the organisation and - crucially - the confidence of our members to be prepared to take action. To do this we have not only to recruit more members and stewards but also develop and articulate a convincing strategy, locally and nationally, which can persuade our members of the necessity for, and efficacy of, the action we will ask them to take.



Secondly, we need to maintain the pressure on all our union leaders to ensure we can give form to the words spoken on Conference platforms. For now, building the strength and combativity of our union organisation is also the most important step we can take in this vital direction.



A couple of Lambeth branch members tell me they saw our General Secretary in Hyde Park last Saturday week and told him they wanted a strike.



"Build for it then," he said.



Very well. We shall.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Prioritising Conference Motions

The key priority for union activists right now is the defence of jobs - however we also need to give some thought to our forthcoming UNISON Conference, and the topic of prioritisation of the Conference agenda - about which I have blogged before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-much-more-on-conference-priorities.html) ad nauseam (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2008/03/prioritising-unison-conference.html).

Not all of the 124 policy motions admitted on to the agenda by the Standing Orders Committee will be debated, and the final order of business will be structured in accordance with the outcome of a prioritisation process in which branches can have a say.

Bearing in mind that motions originating from the National Executive, Regions and National Self-Organised Groups can expect to be prioritised by those bodies, activists need to pay particular attention to lobbying for support for worthy motions from branches to ensure that these do not fall off the agenda altogether.

I offer the following initial thoughts about some of the motions which might be worth prioritising;

Motion 20 from Birmingham on Public Sector Pay raises an issue we need to push up the agenda - we can't let this be the first pay freeze in history not to be broken by trade union action.

Clearly if we are to take such action we need also to defend our rights to do so (such as they are) and that must mean prioritising Motion 80 from Havering, "Defend Trade Union Rights".

Of the various motions on pensions I am obviously inclined to argue for support for Motion 26, "Defend All Pensions" from Lambeth. I hope that several of the pensions motions are prioritised and that a unifying composite motion can be agreed.

Looking at the various motions dealing with the cuts, their impact and our opposition, Motion 35 from Somerset, "National Organisation Against the Cuts" stands out for its advocacy of nonviolent direct action whilst Motion 78, "Youth Unemployment and Young Black People" from Hammersmith and Fulham highlights an important issue.

In a first for this blog (which will shock regular readers Sid and Doris Conference-Anorak) I'd also like to see a motion from the Manchester branch prioritised - Motion 66 which calls for a demonstration when the Tories meet in that city in the autumn.

We need to retain a focus on opposition to the far right - and I think Ealing's Motion 104 on the EDL strikes the right note (mobilising mass opposition is a wiser strategy than calling for bans).

Of three motions on housing (54, 55 and 56) I think Somerset's Motion 56, "Housing Emergency" has the edge (but will listen to colleagues in housing on this of course).

9 of the 14 International motions deal in some way with the Middle East - but because of the pace of events since February's deadline I think it's inevitable that the key international debate will have to be around an Emergency Motion which has not yet even been written.

Finally, Glasgow branch have once more put down a motion (Motion 71 - "Democratic Socialism") which seeks to commit UNISON to support socialist policies. Since all the other motions deal with various problems which capitalism creates for us, I am tempted to support this step forward on the "resolutionary road to socialism."

Since the prioritisation process repays organising between branches I would be interested in the views of other activists.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Out of order?

In the midst of the busiest time in a generation for lay trade union activists, we can't afford to lose sight of the routines of the movement.

Right now the preliminary agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference in June (in Manchester owing to an unfortunate antipathy to meeting on the south coast) is out - and it reveals what has been admitted to the agenda and what has been ruled out of order.

Bizarrely, an attempt by my local branch to encourage debate about whether we should advocate that local authorities should set "needs budgets" has been ruled out of order on the basis that it could (somehow) place the Union in legal jeopardy.

I am obviously cautious about suggesting any criticism of the Standing Orders Committee, bearing in mind how much time and effort has been spent dealing with such matters in the past.

However, you do have to wonder on which planet it would be possible that someone could take legal action against the Union because we contemplated suggesting that local authorities should abide by the policy already endorsed by UNISON's Scottish Council.

If my judgement is wrong, and there is a real threat of litigation against UNISON because our Scottish Council backed "needs budgets" then I invite all readers to join my campaign to raise money for the legal defence of UNISON Scotland. English as well as Scottish pounds are acceptable...