The pay freeze - public servants paying a tithe to the bankers

A warm welcome to the web to the new blog from UNISON's Camden local government branch - who are pointing out that, in the third year of a pay freeze, local government workers have suffered a dramatic fall in our living standards (http://camdenunison.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/a-3-year-pay-freeze-is-a-massive-pay-cut-in-real-terms/).



Since the date from which our last pay rise was effective (1 April 2009) the Retail Price Index has risen by 11%. It takes £111 today to purchase what would have cost £100 back then - or, put another way, each £100 you earn now is only "worth" as much as £90 could back then.



In effect - for a full time worker who has had no promotion or incremental progression to soften the blow - it's as if you had agreed to forego your pay for one day a fortnight without reducing your hours. This is a tithe (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe) paid not to the Church, but to the new religion of Mammon in the cause of bailing out the banks.



This is a dramatic decline in living standards over a short period. UNISON branches with members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland whose pay is set in the National Joint Council negotiations were last week sent a circular giving us four weeks over the summer holidays to consult members on proposals for a "substantial" pay claim.



We need to start alerting our members to the cause of rising overdrafts, squeezed household bugets and increasing hardship - the pay freeze.



The devastating impact of the pay freeze will only be reversed by industrial action, and industrial action will only become possible when we start to have the argument for it with our members.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Barnet - the front line in the defence of public services

UNISON members in Barnet are rightly calling to escalate their action as part of UNISON's trade dispute with the madcap Tory borough over their dogmatic insistence that local government workers cease to be local government workers - the branch is therefore wisely proposing co-ordinated action on 13 September, henceforth "Barnet Independence Day" (http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/?q=node/644).

Whilst I was sorry no one from Barnet could attend tomorrow's Lambeth Branch Committee to update us, I am pleased that the reason is that the branch is meeting with the Region who will, I am sure, endorse the prudent and reasonable course of action which is proposed.

Barnet Council has been trying to launch itself as a flagship for Cameron's "Thatcherism with a shiny face" and it is only the diligent work of the UNISON branch, with support in the trade union and labour movement and the wider community that has staved off mass privatisation thus far.

There are no better negotiators, wiser strategists or more cunning tacticians in our UNISON Region than are to be found in the lay leadership of the Barnet branch, singled out for praise in our General Secretary's keynote Conference speech just a few weeks ago.

Privatisation is an existential threat to public service trade unionism - and now poses an unprecedented challenge to our movement. It is the issue around which the history of UNISON in the second decade of the twenty first century will come to be written.

The main purpose of the attack upon public sector pensions from the point of view of the wealthy capitalists, who expect this Government to do their bidding even more enthusiastically than the last one, is to facilitate the privatisation of public services in order to create new opportunities for profit at the taxpayers' expense (which is why any "concessions" on contribution increases in the LGPS founded upon a belated recognition of their potential macroeconomic consequences provides no basis for any agreement).

It's all about privatisation (as is Lambeth's "co-operative council" as we warned - http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/council-cooperative-privatisation-barnet-lambeth?cat=commentisfree&type=article - and as much as its advocates might wish that were not so).

The defining struggle of the moment is the fight to defend public services, and UNISON members in Barnet find themselves on a strategically significant part of the front line.

They need, deserve and expect the wholehearted support of every UNISON member and official.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The unions and the riots - what do we do with Thatchers' grandchildren?

Yesterday, UNISON issued a statement saluting the public service workers dealing with the consequences of the riots (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7116).

A riot is a rending of the social fabric - and it's quite right to remind politicians and the public of the worth of those of us whose work is to weave, and sometimes repair, that fabric. UNISON was absolutely right to do so.

Whilst ACPO and the Police Federation can be pleased that both the Mayor of London and Her Majesty's Opposition have made the obvious step from that point to questioning forthcoming cuts in policing numbers, it's understandable that firefighters are angry that the cuts they face aren't being challenged to the same extent (http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=3963) - the FBU are clearly right to articulate that anger.

However, our public services are not simply there to respond to, or pick up the pieces after, social disorder. They also play a role in meeting social need, and sustaining involvement in, and the cohesion of, our communities. The statement from PCS on Tuesday went some way to acknowledging that growing unemployment and inequality, accompanied by cuts in social provision are among the longer term causes for the social conditions from which rioting can arise (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/E0A7A515-CEFA-48A4-865EFD52B0A653D3).

Heather Wakefield, writing personally, was able to go a deal further than official comments have in her blog post, rightly picking up on the alienation of inner-city youth and the nature of the policing of those youth as elements in the causation of the riots (http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/08/why-there-were-riots-in-lewisham/). This analysis is not a million miles from that offered in the statement issued by my own union branch (http://lambethunison.blogspot.com/2011/08/lambeth-unison-public-statement-in.html).

We certainly need to go beyond praise for our own members to make the point that the deep cuts being made to jobs and services will, without doubt, make such disorder even more likely in future. Our members losing their jobs in the provision of youth services bearing the brunt of cuts can see this and expect to hear us say it.

However, the trade union movement has a broader responsibility to those beyond our ranks, including those - predominantly young - people engaged in rioting and looting. Our union movement is not just the largest civil society organisation - it has a particular role to represent the interests of the working class.

Thatcher's grandchildren, who rioted this week, have internalised her message that "there is no such thing as society" - only a dog eat dog world in which you can expect neither hope nor justice and might as well take some "free stuff" from fellow citizens to whom you neither have nor feel any ties of common interest or obligation.

These are the bitter fruits of the failures of our trade union movement - failure to defeat the Tories in the 80s and 90s; failure to assert the interests of our class under New Labour - but also failure to organise young people, in and out of employment.

We can't change the past - but we can now turn our minds to how we take the ethos of collectivism to marginalised and excluded young people. Surely we need to start by stepping up campaigns to protect the services on which young people rely, and to reverse the policies, on EMA in particular, which are further diminishing the life chances of the young?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Remember Hiroshima. Cancel Trident

Well said those 21 Labour MPs who have made the point that, on the anniversary of Hiroshima, Labour should be calling for the cancellation of Trident.

No case can be made for the use or threatened use of weapons of mass destruction and no civilised nation should possess, or aspire to possess, such weapons. To remember the hibakusha call on the Government to ensure that disarmament is considered as part of the review of Trident.

Leadership in the pensions dispute - and anonymous commentary

I don't know the identity of the anonymous contributor to the semi-official blog "UNISON Active" who took issue (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2011/08/mobilising-for-pensions-action-from.html) with commentary from Gregor Gall on the pensions dispute (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/05/unions-leaders-members). For ease of reference let's call our anonymous friend Joseph Vissarionovich, or "JV" for short.

Gregor, in a reasoned contribution to an important debate, observed that the Preliminary Agenda for this year's "slimline" Trades Union Congress reveals that the big unions haven't made submissions calling for co-ordinated industrial action over the Government's attacks on public sector pensions. This sounds a discordant note when heard alongside the harmonious calls for such action made at last year's Congress - and from our General Secretary at and before UNISON Conference.

Instead of engaging with this substantive point, "JV" instead picks up on an aside in Gregor's article about the desirability of General Secretaries touring workplaces in order to lampoon a serious commentary as no more than a manifestation of the "great leader" approach (a view of history comprehensively debunked by a generation of great Marxist historians including Christopher Hill, Edward Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm).

This enables "JV" in his or her role as publicity officer for our General Secretary's fan club to laud UNISON's "bottom up" approach to preparation for industrial action over pensions. But somehow, "JV", you seem to miss Gregor Gall's point.

We can do all the data-cleansing we want (and we do, and must) - and we can train up pensions champions by the thousand (as we are and should) - but a "bottom up" approach does have to go "up" and influence the conduct of our leadership.

Sometimes - when caught up in the excitement of a two hundred strong "pensions summit" with no constitutional basis or decisionmaking authority perhaps - being an (albeit anonymous) "insider" may not help "JV" to see what is going on.

Perhaps in order to avoid not being able to see the wood for the trees it sometimes helps to be on the outside, looking in.

Does the conduct of UNISON's leadership since Conference suggest a genuine wish for co-ordinated industrial action to defeat the Government, or a preference for cutting deals "scheme by scheme"?

It's a fair question for Gregor Gall to have addressed, and "JV" does UNISON members a disservice by misrepresenting the argument and turning debate about tactics into a loyalty test.

It's twenty years since the Berlin Wall came down, but the Berlin Walls of the mind which convince sufferers that all dissent is divisive continue to haunt our movement.

Gregor Gall deserves a proper and respectful response from those prepared to put their name to their views.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions - a positive alternative?

I'm on holiday, so may be prone to optimism, but it strikes me that the bad news on pensions in the private sector (http://wricommission.org.uk/wric/private-sector-needs-better-value-for-money-from-its-pensions) presents an opportunity in more ways than one.



Of course it's right to point out that the real problem with pensions in this country is in the private sector (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2392) - just as the real pensions divide is not between public and private but between rich and poor.



But isn't this also now the time to do what I've wondered about before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/04/son-of-frs17-and-lgps.html) turn Hutton on his head and - instead of excluding private sector workers from public sector pension schemes - open up admitted body status in the LGPS to any solvent employer willing to pay their way?



The fight to defend our pensions is inevitably a defensive battle - but we need an alternative vision for a better pensions future, and the stable, viable, funded LGPS might just be the basis for that.



Or maybe I'm just under the influence of too much fresh air, sunshine and Crazy Golf...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

You stupid Tory

Oxbridge educated multi-millionaires clearly (think they) know how to run the world.

Not content with pursuing macroeconomic policies designed to stifle economic recovery, our odious Chancellor has made clear that public sector "reform" is all about instilling "fear" in public sector workers at the microeconomic level (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/30/public-sector-jobs-oliver-letwin?cat=politics&type=article).

This idea - that we need the "stick" of fear to improve productivity in the public sector reveals both the ideology and class bias and prejudice behind Government policy.

First, it is clear that little Oliver really believes that there is something called the "discipline" of the market and that by creating fake "market" structures and imposing them upon public services, we shall have the benefit of this discipline.

(What is it about public schoolboys and "discipline" and why do the rest of us have to be part of it? At least Max Moseley tried to keep it all behind closed doors!)

It is possible to show, theoretically, that in certain precise circumstances (which could not exist in reality) perfectly competitive markets could produce "optimal resource allocation" where all "the factors of production" are applied most efficiently to meeting the demand from consumers. That insight provides no basis however, either in theory or practice, to conclude that an increase in managed competition in the delivery of public services will improve productivity (the measurement of which is in any case deeply problematic).

Little Oliver has a faith in the "discipline" of the market, but that's all it is - it has no basis beyond his warped belief system.

After all, Letwin's chums in banking were all part of a competitive "market" - and look how well that turned out in 2008!

The comparison with the bankers (and also with benefit claimants) shows the class prejudice underpinning Letwin's kindegarten economics.

On planet Letwin, public sector workers share with benefit claimants, a need for the "stick" of discipline, whether to shake us from our unproductive torpor in the workplace or to goad us into jobseeking. Those of us doing least well from this "market economy" must be threatened with worse in order to improve our performance. It's clearly the only language we "oiks" understand.

In the Board Rooms and on the trading floors however, better performance has to be incentivised with handsome bonuses and share options. To motivate gentlemen (and a few ladies) who share little Oliver's background, it is the "carrot" of reward which the market deploys, in its impersonal wisdom, to drive improvement.

After all, Oliver knows that he - and decent people like him - are motivated by being rewarded, whereas "oiks" obviously need a different approach.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Government's "contribution" to pension negotiations - we should strike back

I really am trying to do nothing whilst on leave, particularly as the prospect of an adequately remunerated retirement seems to be in some jeopardy! But things keep happening...

The Government's decision to announce proposed "contribution increases" for public sector pension scheme members does seem to pre-empt the "scheme-specific" negotiations into which the trade unions allowed ourselves to be pushed (particularly since "consultation" on these proposals will take place over the summer recess). Today's announcement shows plans to take one billion pounds next year out of the pockets of teachers, health workers and civil servants to help meet the cost of a financial crisis not caused by these groups of workers.

It is certainly a reasonable response to these tactics to get angry but a credible threat of industrial action is an even better response and the best response is to highlight the spreading threat of ever wider action.

When negotiating with an employer under a threat (whether that is of pension contribution increases, job losses or a pay freeze) then any union negotiator knows that they are in a stronger position if clearly preparing - and balloting - for credible, achievable and potentially effective action. The response to a playground bully should not be name-calling, but firm action.

What we need - in line with UNISON Conference policy - is "industrial action to be aimed at achieving maximum unity at the earliest appropriate time, across the public sector."

After Norway - think globally and act locally

I’m not sure if I mentioned sufficiently, whilst blogging a few weeks ago about UNISON Conference, what a pleasure it was to see the exhibition of banners made by my old friend (and former Lambeth UNISON Branch Secretary) Ed Hall, at the People’s History Museum in Manchester.

In pride of place stands the banner, pictured above, which Ed made, almost overnight for us in 1999 when we mobilised local people to protest against the bombings in Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho, which we now know were perpetrated by a criminal influenced by the hate politics of the far right.

In the awful shadow of the far worse events which took place in Norway, it is important that labour movement activists recognise that the politics of hate, the antithesis of the politics of labour, require our constant opposition.

Whatever the true nature of any relationship between the Norwegian killer and the thugs of the EDL, it is important that – as we send our condolences to Norway - we prevent the EDL spreading their hate-politics in Tower Hamlets on 3 September.

Pensions "silver bullet"? A lycanthrope's views...

UNISON Active deserves a hat tip for blogging the widely anticipated news that the Local Government Pension Scheme is to be exempted from the contribution increases proposed for other public sector pension schemes (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2011/07/fund-mergers-silver-bullet-in-lgps.html). (Although I really don't understand, comrades, why you blog anonymously! Whether lay activist or full time official, you are surely free to express your views?)(Remember there are now no enemies in the hall...)

I'd like to believe that this positive development (http://m.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/2095677/lgps-freed-contribution-increase-rule) is primarily attributable to the "the sustained pressure of evidence produced by UNISON during the negotiations" as UNISON Active say, but it occurs to me that lobbying by the (Tory controlled) Local Government Employers (http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119455) may have played a significant role.

I'd also like to believe, as the anonymous blogger does, that "fund mergers will deliver (the Government's target) saving without imposing costs on scheme members or further reductions in pensions for retired members" (even though I still want us to fight the 15% reduction in the value of my pension due to the imposition of CPI for uprating!) UNISON Active say that fund merger is the "silver bullet" in negotiations around the LGPS.

Merger of the separate pension funds has been the Holy Grail at UNISON HQ for a number of years, but if it were to reduce the ability of individual local authorities to determine their employers' contributions (taking account of actuarial advice) this could turn out to be something of a poisoned chalice for local government workers. I'm not saying it's a bad idea - just that it needs careful thought and that it is incautious to start suggesting now that there is some sort of "silver bullet" in negotiations over the LGPS.

In particular, if we emerge from the premature "scheme-specific" negotiations into which we have allowed ourselves to be frogmarched without protecting both the right of private sector workers to be part of our pension schemes, and the requirement upon transferees to match public sector pension provision then we will be offering up hundreds of thousands of our jobs to the profit-hungry multinationals which leech off the taxpayer.

I'm all for negotiating deals without the need for strike action, but you never get the best deal you can without at least mobilising for action - and you don't do that with idle talk of "silver bullets."

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A tale of two sections

Today was another busy day for activists in my own branch, with the different experiences of two different sections of our workforce illustrating a clear lesson about the value of union organisation.

We called off strike action in our libraries - because we secured a deal which met our objective of averting compulsory redundancies, whilst protecting the service better than the previous proposals from management (http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/streathamnews/9153624.Library_strike_called_off/).

Later that same day we lost a key vote at Lambeth's Finance Scrutiny Committee, although we had won the argument, with the result that the Council will press ahead with privatising its own caller centre - to Capita who intend to move the work to Southampton. We will continue to resist - and to do all we can to protect our members - but there is no disguising that this was a setback.

Why such different results in the same branch?

The crucial difference between the two sections is the density of union membership and the demonstrated willingness of those members to take action. In Libraries - where we saved every job - we have 90% density and had a 90% "YES" vote in an official ballot. In the Caller Centre we represent a minority of the workforce - and had not yet been able to get to the point of balloting.

The lesson of this contrast is twofold. First, recruitment matters to members and non-members alike, because "Kirklees" levels of membership give us the potential power to protect the workforce as a whole.

Secondly, to realise that potential, local leaders need to use the confidence which strong membership gives them to find the courage to organise industrial action.

On most working days for a year or more now I have been in at least one meeting to discuss redundancies. I have never seen the union contribution listened to as attentively as it is when backed up by a mandate for strike action.

There are those who believe that you ought not to ballot for action until you have "exhausted" all procedures, some even wrongly believe this to be a requirement of UNISON policy. This is, of course, a foolish view.

I am very pleased that the Greater London Region supported, and the NEC Industrial Action Committee sanctioned, a strike ballot - and a date for action - whilst we were deeply enmeshed in continuing discussions with management.

It is because we were supported to take this correct approach that we have been able to defeat compulsory redundancies in Lambeth Libraries.

We will seek to apply the key lessons of this episode to other local disputes - and I invite other UNISON members reading this post to do likewise.

We need an application form in one hand and a copy of the UNISON Industrial Action Handbook in the other!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions - A view from the foothills

As a mere member of the UNISON NEC I was not invited to Tuesday's "pensions summit" at UNISON HQ.



(And that's as it should be - the NEC doesn't have direct control over service conditions issues).



I understand that those at the summit were largely facing in the same direction, although whether from that lofty perspective they could see the class struggle I do not know.



Down here in the pensions foothills it seems obvious that we need to be gearing up for action and - if "naming a date" is a bit too Spartish for us, we should at least pencil in a week (or month?)



Not for the first time this year I find I agree completely with the Communist Party of Britain about a key question confronting our Union (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/content/view/full/107288) - it is time now to concentrate upon preparing for industrial action against the Government, and to use negotiations as a tool to assist those preparations.



This is not the approach which we can expect from the General Secretary of the TUC, who will invariably see industrial action as a tool to be used to assist negotiations.



Without effective united mass action we will not be able to shift the parameters within which negotiations are taking place in order to arrive at anything resembling a worthwhile outcome.



The Government are losing the "affordability" argument not because of the eloquence of our negotiators but because of the decisive action of hundreds of thousands of public servants on 30 June.



Although Brendan Barber's letter to the Government does appear to face in both directions (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2375) it still panders too much to the illusion that there is - at the moment - anything approaching a deal to be had from the Coalition as things stand.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions "summit" and the need for unity

Those attending today's Pensions "summit" at UNISON HQ should be guided by the statement put before UNISON Conference by our NEC four weeks ago;



"In the weeks ahead though every member must be made aware of the severity of the issues that face us, and the union must step up a gear in preparing for industrial action, to ensure that the 1.2 million members who will be balloted will participate, and will vote positively for industrial action. We must ensure that members are involved and fully understand what is at stake, to ensure we deliver a high turnout in any ballot and deliver a resounding yes vote for industrial action."



To win the ballot - and the battle - we'll need unity across the whole public sector, not just across health and local government. If we put sectoral considerations ahead of the need for unity we will all be poorer in the years ahead.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What was the point of that then?

Now we move into "scheme-specific" negotiations on our pensions (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7060).

So why did we bother to have the talks with Francis Maude and Danny Alexander? What has been achieved?

Nothing.

Nothing appears to have been ruled out. Maybe "voices off" have indeed promised no contribution increases in the LGPS (a tribute to the influence of the employers rather more than to the organisations of the employees perhaps?) but it appears that "world class" negotiators have emerged from the Cabinet Office with a no score draw at the bottom of League Two.

The point of the Cabinet Office talks (if I can explain it for the really dense pupils of struggle like novice B Barber) was to use the power of unity to have some leverage. If you never meant to do that then you really shouldn't've wasted all our time. You may have asked the unions who struck on 30 June what their "exit strategy" was - but have you ever had any sort of strategy at all?

The workers who struck on 30 June - and the many others fighting round the country - are truly lions (and they are led by lions) - but our movement as a whole does appear right now to be led by donkeys (or possibly barbers)(meaning no offence to those engaged in the honest toil of cutting hair!).

If I went to my Branch Committee and said "right, I've spoken to the Director of HR, the Leader and the Chief Executive and agreed that nothing is ruled out, now off you trot [pun intended] and negotiate your redundancies department by department" they would rightly ask what I was for.

Where cuts and job losses are hitting a whole Council workforce (for example) it must be right at least to try to mobilise a response across the whole workforce, rather than deciding at the outset to leave each section to fight alone. The least you do in these circumstances is ensure that you have a corporate trade dispute so that the door is open to workforce-wide action.

Where an attack on pensions hits the whole public sector (and provides the only lawful opportunity for a generalised response to any of a whole series of attacks) then the least that should be done is that disputes should be organised and co-ordinated around unifying demands.

That means that the Cabinet Office talks should have been used to make some general demands (around, say, contribution increases, retirement ages, uprating and private sector membership). These demands, if unmet, should have led to trade disputes with the relevant Secretaries of State, and to co-ordinated action in the early autumn.

A leadership of our movement which lived daily with the attacks of the Tory Government would have pursued such an approach. It remains the right approach, reflecting UNISON policy and the interests of our members, and we should pursue it still.

Those who support the move to "scheme specific" negotiations on the basis that no concessions have been won (or perhaps even been asked for) support neither UNISON policy nor UNISON members.

The Service Group Liaison Committee (SLGC) meets tomorrow. It has no place in UNISON's Rule Book - and was only ever mentioned in UNISON Conference Policy when our largest Service Group declared it unfit for purpose after the fiasco of the last pensions dispute.

If the SLGC wants to support the move to scheme-specific negotiations in order to break the unity of the trade unions with no assurances whatsoever then I hope each member of that august body will be prepared to undertake a speaking tour of branches to explain why the "protect our pensions" campaign was no more than hot air.

As a local government worker, I know who sold me short last time there was a pensions dispute. As a public servant I can see what is happening now.

I have no enemies within the Union, but if my friends make mistakes I shall let them know. If tomorrow's SLGC lives up to its potential it will call for trade disputes in all sectors now and unified action at an early date.

No socialist or trade unionist would settle for less. This is not a time for soundbites, but the hand of history is on their shoulders...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Focus!

It's wonderful to speculate that Cameron may be destroyed by his relationship with Murdoch. In the mean time my pension may be destroyed by the relationship between my union leadership and "Mr Ed" - since it appears we aren't (yet?) up for the united fight which the occasion clearly demands.



Rather than celebrate the humiliation of the Murdochs please can we all try to focus on what matters?



Anyone who thought Monday 18 Juky 2011 was a day on which one would be wise to do a deal with a powerful reactionary Government should be prepared to think again.



But how do we communicate that? UNISON members should get on to their Service Group Executive member now!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Panem et circenses

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the discomfiture of a rich bastard as much as the next trade unionist.

Watching the odious Murdoch and his entourage playing the camel trying - and (most importantly) failing to get through the eye of the needle has been a great deal of fun.

I am, however, a tiny bit worried that whilst we celebrate the downfall of News International (and the emergence of Ed Miliband as a leader of the stature of Neil Kinnock) the TUC may be about to throw away our strength in the fight to defend our pensions (and therefore give up any hope of a national fight against the Government.)

It may be that we are being distracted (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses) whilst what we should be doing is focusing on our own interests.

Of course we don't want our media dominated by one plutocrat (or two, or three) - whether or not he (or improbably she) is British. Of course we want a greater democratisation of our mass media.

However, the key issue which confronts us is the Tory assault upon our Welfare State - and our only chance of effective, nationally co-ordinated action to confront this is if the TUC can find both the courage and the intelligence to organise the widest, earliest and most effective action against the assault on public sector pensions.

(For those whose scripted response to such a suggestion is to observe that the TUC could not do this, I invite you to consider whether your script was prepared at 10 Downing Street, by Ed M, or at Congress House, and to reflect upon what it says about you to be in agreement with such a parcel of rogues.)

The Government's attack on pensions provided - and still provides - the trade union movement with the opportunity to organise widespread national strike action (around a series of separate trade disputes), likely to achieve a large part of our objectives, whilst delivering a shattering political blow to the Coalition.

The Government, having belatedly realised that they were in danger of over-reaching themselves, have been drawing back in order to disrupt the unity of the union movement which (alone) can threaten their hegemony.

Those union leaders who focus now on building strength sector-by-sector in order to do the best we can in "scheme specific negotiations" are abandoning the very cause which brought into existence the largest of UNISON's "former partner union"s, as well as the interests of our class. (The purpose of a trade union is not simply to continue to exist, but to represent and promote the interests of our members, so as to give some purpose to continued existence.)

We need to press home the advantage given us by the present political weakness of the Coalition of the millionaires in order to assert the agenda of the millions. The key battle of the moment is about whether we humiliate the Government over pensions or they humiliate us.

If tomorrow the PSLG support a move to scheme-specific negotiations, without having won a single concession, then we shall enter this battle under a leadership which neither believes in, nor wants, victory.

If that happens - as I hope it will not - rank and file activists need to redouble our efforts to secure both unity and action.

In the mean time dear reader, enjoy the pain of the Murdochs as we once enjoyed the pain of the Maxwells - but don't be distracted by the Murdochs from the Government's plan to "do a Maxwell" with the pensions of all public servants!

Unity is strength. It's not complicated. Don't be distracted.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Trade Union Unity or a pensions farce?

I hope that the tragedy of 15 April 1921 (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1921)) isn't set to be repeated as farce at the TUC Public Service Liaison Group on 18 July, ninety years later.

In 1921 the pledges of mutual support between trade unions were found wanting. In 2011 the Government may be set to propose that negotiations on the future of public service pensions move on to "scheme-specific" negotiations on the basis that, as far as the recommendations of Lord Hutton are concerned, "nothing is ruled out."

If the TUC support this move they will be acknowledging a failure to use the potential strength of our unity to secure concessions - and will be opening the door to "divide and rule" tactics from the Government. This wouldn't simply - as in 1921 - be a betrayal of one (or more) union(s) by the leaders of other unions. It would amount to the leaders of those unions who support Brendan Barber in bending the knee to Danny Alexander letting down their own members very seriously indeed.

If I may be parochial for a moment, as a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme - I would clearly be relieved if lobbying from the local authority employers meant that the Government withdrew proposed increases in contributions in the LGPS.

It may be that hints of such a move are amongst the encouragement being given to the largest unions to break ranks with the teachers and civil servants in particular and rush now into "scheme-specific" talks.

However, if talks about the LGPS commence now we will be swallowing the 15% reduction in our pensions imposed on 1 April when the basis of uprating was changed - and (more importantly) we will be squandering the opportunity to use the combined strength of the entire public sector to resist Hutton's catastrophic plan to exclude private sector workers from public sector pensions, which sits alongside the Government's desire to end pension protection on transfer.

If outsourcing companies (such as Capita) know that they can transfer local government employees without having to preserve the value of their pensions then they will be able to offer cheaper bids to Councils desperate to save money.

This will tend to accelerate privatisation - and will ensure that the many thousands of workers whose jobs face privatisation will lose completely whatever we think we have gained for LGPS members in "scheme-specific" negotiations.

If we miss the chance to fight nationally to defend our pensions (and therey resist privatisation) we will be abandoning our members and branches to a contract-by-contract fight against privatisation from employers who will then know that the UK's largest trade union funked the only chance it will get in this Parliament to defeat the most reactionary Government in our history.

I so hope I am worrying needlessly.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Disjuncture

Stepping from a meeting of our National Executive Council back into the maelstrom of job losses and privatisation in the workplace is like moving between dimensions.

Looked at from the perspective of the national trade unions (those employed in, or spending much of their time in, the Centre) the Government's attacks upon our welfare state and those who work in it are happening "out there."

That's not to say that there isn't a genuine and heartfelt desire to resist at the top of our Union. There is. But to leave the Centre and travel back the few miles to my own branch is to rejoin the world in which these attacks are raining down on us, in a way which you simply don't feel at the Centre.

Here - and I take my branch only as an example - are librarians preparing to strike as their shop stewards negotiate with management to avert that strike by avoiding redundancies; One O'Clock Club workers pleading with a Labour Party branch meeting to make Councillors stop their managers ruining their service; Park Rangers helping their Convenor to try to persuade management to focus on income generation rather than dismissals; Caller Centre workers mobilised by their shop stewards to lobby local businesses against the privatisation of their jobs to a company which wants to take the work sixty miles away; and, shop stewards fighting a rearguard action against management bullying and discrimination under cover of the cuts.

These are just some of the things which are going on (in addition to the everyday grind of casework) and I know that a hundred other Branch Secretaries could tell a similar tale. This is the busiest time I have known in more than two decades of union activism.

But - and here I agree with our General Secretary - this is what we are for. This is why our predecessors built, here in this country, the first trade union movement in the world. Our collective organisation is meant to be for fighting to protect ourselves when we have no other option.

I have heard many people say that our members are not uniformly or universally ready to fight, and of course that is (always) true.

But this is a time that calls for leadership. Not leadership that seeks and then replicates a consensus, but leadership which leads from the front.

Not leadership which reflects back the uncertainty of our members, thereby magnifying it, but leadership which sets before our members the need for decisive action and for a willingness to make the sacrifices which this will entail.

In short, this is a time for leftwing leadership. At local level we can make what little difference it is possible to make. A Branch Secretary cannot make members fight injustice if they lack the confidence or inclination to do so - but she or he can help, rather than hinder, them when they do.

At a national level our leadership have, this year, a chance to shape UNISON's place in the history books of the future.

We could be the clever people who, understanding the complex differences between pension schemes, realised the centrality of sector-by-sector organisation and, in helping to broker scheme by scheme deals in which our members shoulder more of the demographic burden, help to weaken defined benefit pension provision.

Or we could be the stupid people who fail to recognise the inevitability of increased contributions and reduced benefits at a later age. We could foolishly insist upon unity in negotiations and subsequent action, regardless of all the detailed differences between the schemes.

Worst of all, we could be so daft as to stand shoulder to shoulder with teachers and civil servants, as well a other health and local government workers, in order to assert the (tremendously unfashionable and old-fashioned) unity of the working class.

If we were that stupid we might one day be remembered as the people who stopped the most reactionary Government in history from destroying the key gains of past generations.

Now is the time when union leaders are called upon to risk the enormous humiliation of failure in hope of the prize of success.

If we can take that risk nationally then life at HQ will come to reflect the all but intolerable pressure in the branches, and the disjuncture I have felt wil disappear.

I hope.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

No enemies in the room

Newly elected local government NEC member, Kathy Smith, sought to raise - at the close of today's meeting of the UNISON NEC - concerns about the Regional supervision of the Bromley branch.



Whilst procedurally the President may well have been correct that this matter could not be pursued to a conclusion as a "matter arising" from the previous minutes, the majority of my NEC colleagues who voted to move to "next business" will need to consider further how we give effect to the statement of our General Secretary, made at our Conference in Manchester, that he had "no enemies within the hall."



We need not to have enemies in the meeting room either - and the new Development and Organisation Committee needs to oversee the rapid return to democratic control of the branches under supervision. It may be that we need also a clearer process for taking branches into supervision.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The biennial dance of the Committees and the Magnificent Sevens

As is customary, the first full meeting of the newly elected National Executive Council (NEC) of UNISON split into its various Committees in order to elect the Chairs and Vice-Chairs, who act, between meetings, with the authority of the NEC.



The President announced, before we split up, that hustings would not be permitted, but that the Presidential team would review this and hustings might be permitted - in 2013... ("Name the Day" I say!)



Sue Highton was re-elected unopposed as Chair of the Development and Organisation Committee, with Mark Clifford winning the position of Vice-Chair with nine votes against seven (of whom I was one) who voted for Moz Greenshields (who had asked for hustings).



Jane Carolan and Steve Warwick were re-elected as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Policy Committee defeating challengers, Helen Davies and April Ashley.



The Chairs of the other strategic Committees remain as they were. Former President, Angela Lynes, remains Chair of the Industrial Action Committee with Lucia McKeevor as Vice-Chair, defeating a challenge from veteran NEC member (and former Vice-Chair of the Committee) Roger Bannister, who garnered seven votes.



Congratulations to all those elected.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Naming Ceremonies?

Serial UNISON NEC member and sometime blogger, James Anthony, opined today (in response to the suggestion that we should "name the day" to commence unified industrial action to defend public service pensions) that we were talking about a campaign of strike action and not a wedding.

This is of course true, as was the observation from our General Secretary that a single day won't in any case do the job and that a sustained campaign will be required.

However, since we do need both to marry together the efforts of all the public service trade unions and to begin to visualise a timetable for sustained action, the demand to "name the day" does correspond - in a general way - with the interests of our members (and potential members).

By identifying a clear timetable for unified action our trade unions would send an unambiguous message to this Coalition Government that we are not going to allow the complex differences between particular pension schemes to divide and diminish our unity of purpose (which must be to inflict a defeat on them in this battle in order to weaken and diminish all their many attacks upon the interests of our class).

Additionally, by giving a general indication of the timetable to which we are working, we will help to overcome the problem of activists putting other issues ahead of the pensions dispute.

As one such branch activist I know that I can now only deal with crises and that I need the spur (or goad) of a timetable if the pensions issue is to remain at the top of my "to do" list.

Whilst activists will rightly lobby the NEC as the body responsible for the governance of our Union between Conferences, it is also true that the initiation of industrial action is a matter for Sector Committees (under the overall responsibility of Service Groups) and that approval for such attempts will depend upon the NEC's Industrial Action Committee.

As some disputes cross Service Group boundaries their management may fall to the Service Group Liaison Committee (SGLC)(which exists in a shadow realm beyond our Rule Book).

There are those who say that our arrangements for lay control of cross-Sector industrial action are clear, simple and transparent. They are wrong.

If our General Secretary has invited Regional Convenors to an extended SGLC meeting on the 19th (aka the Pensions "summit") then this pushes in a correct - inclusive - direction. Including representatives of each Regional Local Government Committee on the body dealing with negotiations on the Local Government Pension Scheme would be a further positive step.

We have more work yet to do if we are to ensure democratic control by the elected representatives of our members over the dispute which will define our Union. In the mean time, those who ask our NEC to "name the day" make a demand which correctly corresponds to the interests of those we represent.

I look forward to being lobbied in the morning!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Tramp the dirt down

I remember, long ago, Tony Benn objecting to the coining of the phrase "Thatcherism" as it personalised a political philosophy we opposed.



It is pretty much axiomatic that Tony Benn is right, as he certainly was on that point.



However, individuals are not unimportant sometimes, and one individual who did as much as anyone to drive through the Thatcherite agenda in the 80s was Rupert Murdoch.



Therefore, as much as I look forward to celebrating Thatcher's death (remembering the Falklands, the Miners and the millions of wasted years of unemployment), I today also enjoy the fact that Murdoch has had to close a profitable newspaper in a doomed attempt to rescue his reputation.



It's impossible to celebrate the loss of hundreds of jobs by ordinary people employed to produce a newspaper (http://m.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notwmobile/home/). But it is absolutely right to look forward to dancing - soon - on the political grave, not only of the man himself but also, perhaps of those politicians who subordinated themselves to him.



What we need is an independent judicial inquiry into News Interrnational - and a labour movement enquiry into what successive Labour leaders thought they were doing sucking up to a gang of scoundrels.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON needs to act on pensions - lobby the NEC next Wednesday!

Our General Secretary, Dave Prentis issued a "call to arms" at our National Delegate Conference, and made clear our support for our sister unions' action last week.



Next week our newly elected National Executive Council meets - we need to step up preparations for united strike action across the public sector as a whole.



We need to be alive to the danger of "divide and rule" tactics from the Government. UNISON in particular, and our leadership most of all, have an obligation to inspire confidence across the movement that we will rise to the challenge which we face.



UNISON members can show our leaders that we will support the call to arms by attending a lobby of the NEC on Wednesday 13 July at 8.30am outside 130 Euston Road to show support for the setting of a timetable for action.



Any UNISON member who can get along to support our Union's fight for our pensions - I'll see you there!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Freedom for Palestine

Later today I will attempt to purchase my first single since the days of vinyl at http://freedomoneworld.com/.



This is to get a track supporting the Palestinians up the charts (from #43). You can read more on the PSC website (http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=4&l2_id=106&Content_ID=1985).



If I do manage to purchase a download all I will then need to do is work out where to put the stylus...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

NHS - 63 and going strong

Tuesday is the "birthday" of our National Health Service which, at 63, may face premature retirement at the hands of a hostile Government.

UNISON nationally has been encouraging members to organise events to mark this occasion - and to underline our determination to defend our NHS. The various events which are taking place are identified on ;the TUC's excellent "false economy" site.

Were I able to do so, I would certainly attend the London demonstration called by UNITE and backed by the Labour Representation Committee (LRC). UNISON in London needs to learn the art of not letting other people take the lead which we should be taking to defend our Health Service - but most importantly we should support every action which mobilises support for our NHS.

Occasionally we win

As a rule I blog here about trade union work, but - like every trade unionist I am not only a worker but a citizen and, in my case, a parent.

In this capacity I have been pleased to play a modest role in the excellent campaign to defeat plans for Academy status of Varndean School, where my daughter is a student and my mother was "school captain" in the 50s (!)

On Friday, this campaign scored a significant victory for democracy and the defence of public services when the Headteacher and Chair of Governors declared that the school "was not for sale". This appeared to be a complete retreat from the decision taken three months by Governors to "express an interest" in Academy status.

Whilst the authors of this statement could not resist a couple of sly digs at the "unpleasantness" of "political campaigning" against their original expression of interest in Academy status, their statement is otherwise a complete vindication of the campaign waged by parents, students, staff and supporters to defend the school as it is, and to protect state education.

In a year of retreats and defeats, of redundancies and - all too often - despair, it's good to know that, just occasionally and maybe just for a while, we can win. No victory is certain or permanent, but each victory should be celebrated and built upon. I hope that the campaigners who have pushed one school away from considering Academy status (at least for a time) will broaden their efforts to protect state education more generally.

If those who use and rely upon public services stand together with those who provide them we can defend our services and catch a glimpse of how the world might be.

If you face the same challenge start with the website of the Anti-Academy Alliance to learn how to resist.

Intergenerational solidarity

With thanks to Harpymarx here you can see your blogger bearing the burden of future generations on Thursday's UCU picket line at the Brixton site of Lambeth College.

The Government are determined to destroy occupational pension provision (at least on a defined benefit basis) whatever they may say.

Their determination is such that they may well delay the destruction in one sector if that means that they can achieve their aims by dividing us sector from sector.

UNISON had to step up to the plate now. We are the biggest trade union and we need to lead and unify the trade union response in order to defeat the Government.

Good luck!

Good luck to everyone taking strike action tomorrow, 30 June - and to all those who will be showing solidarity with the strikes in any way possible.

The admirable j30 website includes details of local protests. It is very helpful to trade unionists that there should be "unofficial" publicity, clearly independent of the unions, since this can say things which - for fear of the anti-union laws - official trade union publicity cannot repeat.

We must ensure that this is simply the first step in a sustained campaign to defend public service pensions (and through that campaign, the entire public sector). We must not allow ourselves to be divided down the blind alley of "sector specific" negotiations which allow the Government to play one group off against another.

Unity is strength

In breaking news, the Government acknowledge that there is a difference between the (funded) Local Government Pension Scheme and the other (unfunded) schemes…

I believe that Danny Alexander and Francis Maude may also have commented favourably upon Papal Catholicism and the arboreal toilet habits of ursine mammals.

Let’s be clear. The Tories want to destroy occupational defined benefit pension schemes. Career average is a Lib Dem friendly halfway house whilst they use contribution increases and benefit reductions to sabotage our pension schemes. Mark Serwotka seems to have got the measure of the Government in these "negotiations".

Last time it was local government workers who were left to fight alone as the unions chose to do a deal which excluded us. Don’t let us, this time, be broken away from the rest of the public sector again.

Those who emphasise building unity “scheme by scheme” are not serious about unity. And those who are not serious about unity are not serious about victory in the most important fight faced by our trade unions for a generation.

I’m all for our union leaders meeting the Government as early as possible and as late as necessary, but in the mean time we need to get on with preparing for industrial action. Our General Secretary is right to say on our website that;

"We give our full support to our brothers and sisters in PCS, NUT and ATL, taking action on Thursday over pensions – their fight is our fight – and UNISON will be taking part in demonstrations up and down the country to support them. Our advice to school and college staff is clear – do not cover unless it is part of your job. And I send support to our members taking action on the same day in Camden, Doncaster Birmingham and Southampton, over job cuts."

NHS SOS

I’m hoping that UNISON, as the major health service trade union, will join with UNITE in supporting a demonstration in defence of our health service on 5 July.

The Government’s “pause” on the Health and Social Care Bill seems to have been quite dangerous, as they are pressing ahead with a fundamental attack upon our NHS. In UNISON terms, this is a “citizenship issue” and it is absolutely vital that the majority of our members in local government do not think that this is something to be left to health workers to sort out.

Indeed UNISON members in all Service Groups can take immediate action to defend our NHS – even if all you have is five minutes and access to a computer.

I understand that it may be useful to email scrutiny@parliament.uk along the following lines (hat tip Gill George);

Re-committal of certain clauses of the Health and Social Care Bill to the Public Bill Committee
Evidence from [insert your name].
[insert date]
1. I submit this evidence as a concerned citizen, [insert further personal information as appropriate].
2. It is my understanding that the government proposes to change the wording of those parts of the Bill - sections 1, sections 2 and sections 3[1] - that ensure the Secretary of State for Health not only has a duty to promote but also to provide or secure general and listed health services in England.
3. The government asserts that the change in wording will not alter the duty on the State to both promote and provide general and specific health services in England.
4. If the duty to provide health services is not, in essence, being changed in any fundamental way there is no case for altering the wording of the 2006 NHS Act in this respect.
5. There is however a case against changing it. If amendments are made to these sections, the whole Bill needs to be fully re-examined in light of the amended clauses in order to confirm that the Bill does not change the duty on the State to provide health services . However, sufficient time has not been allowed to undertake adequate legal scrutiny of the Bill as a whole.
6. In the absence of adequate legal scrutiny, Parliament and the electorate simply do not know what the proposed amendments – and the new Bill as a whole - will mean in practice.
7. I am therefore writing as a member of the electorate to make clear that I strongly oppose any change to the wording of sections 1, 2 and 3[1] of the 2006 NHS Act.
In summary:
The current legal framework enshrines the founding principles of the NHS, ensuring that it remains publicly provided and accountable, comprehensive, universal, equitable, funded by taxes and free at the point of delivery. The duty on the Secretary of State for Health to provide as well as promote both general and listed services is the lynchpin in this legal framework. The most convincing legal evidence to date has been that this Bill removes the duty to provide health services. The government must allow adequate time for proper scrutiny of the amended Bill, in its entirety, to ensure it no longer abolishes either the general duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure provision of health services in England or the specific duty to provide listed services. Until that time, no change should be made to sections 1, 2 and 3[1] of the 2006 NHS Act. Only this will ensure the State retains its duty to provide or secure as well as to promote comprehensive health services in the England. Given that the government says there is no intention to remove the duty to provide services, no amendment to the 2006 NHS Act should be necessary.

Palestine debate at UNISON Conference

Rather than repeat a better post elsewhere I recommend this report from Labournet of the significant debate on Palestine at UNISON Conference, which saw Conference reject an NEC proposal for "critical engagement" with the Israeli Histradut trade union federation.

The torpor of Friday afternoon

Following the excitement of Thursday afternoon at UNISON's National Delegate Conference, the conduct of Friday afternoon's business demonstrated a lamentable lack of enthusiasm.
With the very honourable exception of a small number of delegates (predominantly from London and predominantly from the Left) who took responsibility for trying to drive Conference business forward, most delegates seemed content to allow Conference to be a platform for those who consider speechifying to be more important than policymaking.
I salute those delegates who braved the wrath of other delegates to move that the question be put. Barry from Camden deserves a medal.
It may seem unimportant how many motions we get to when the NEC (to whom they will be referred if we do not reach them) are in support, but it is dangerous if we allow the machinery of lay democracy to atrophy in our trade union.
For the moment, the spirit of unity against the Coalition Government means that, on substantive issues of policy (rather than questions of Rules and finance) there is unity of purpose between the floor of Conference and the platform. Experience suggests that this will not always be the case.
The unhealthy influence exercised by the national machine over Regional lay structures (exemplified by the crass "churnalism" in Conference bulletins about which I have blogged earlier) dictates that the pre-Conference prioritisation process can marginalise dissent, making the reprioritisation process at Conference a vital opportunity for lay members to assert authority in our own Union.
This was used to best effect a few years ago when a groundswell of opinion led to a motion from Bromley branch critical of Labour Link topping the list of reprioritised motions. (Should individuals hostile to the interests of UNISON members secure the expulsion of the mover of that motion this will, incidentally, demonstrate that some of the words of our General Secretary on Tuesday afternoon were hollow and meaningless - an outcome I very much hope we avoid!)
For reprioritisation to do the job it was designed for, the floor of Conference needs, in future years, to show the same commitment to moving business along, as was shown by too few delegates yesterday. We also need a reduction in speaking times on Friday afternoon, and an approach from SOC which proactively promotes composites of single motions with their own amendments where these will not be controversial.
UNISON members should reserve more policymaking to Conference, and leave less to the NEC.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Not how it's done...

After yesterday's close of UNISON National Delegate Conference, the newly elected NEC met to elect the President and Vice-Presidents.



Eleanor Smith was elected unopposed as President and Chris Tansley as "senior" Vice-President, in line with the convention (which is not a Rule) that members of the Presidential Team serve a three year term culminating in their Presidential year.



In the contested election for "junior" Vice-President, Maureen LeMarinel was successful and April Ashley (for whom I voted) was not.Unfortunately, the President rejected a suggestion from newly elected NEC member, Helen Davies, that each candidate say a few words so that new members could decide who to vote for.



This proposal was rejected on the grounds that " we don't do that" (although I recollect that we did in 2003). Subsequently, East Midlands NEC member, Moz Greenshields, asked the new Presidential team to consider organising hustings in the forthcoming elections for Committee Chairs, and the President confirmed that this would be considered.



I wish the new Presidential Team well. If our NEC is to give effect to the clarion call for unity in action, issued by our General Secretary on Tuesday, and to heed the warning given by the floor of Conference on Thursday, then we need to reconsider some of "how we do things."



A truly collective NEC which saw it as more important to embrace diversity than to seek to impose uniformity would better serve our members in the challenging times ahead.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Churnalism at Conference

Amongst the mistakes made by those supporting NEC policy in yesterday's Rules debates was the publication, in numerous Regional delegates' bulletins of unsigned "articles" which (in identical wording) set out the case for the NEC position.



Regional bulletins should be the voice of Conference floor, and delegates don't find it persuasive to find these bulletins being used to convey an "official line."



Regional bulletins should only editorialise anonymously in line with agreed Regional policy. Delegates don't like to be taken for fools.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Rule P.2.3.3 and its discontents

Assiduous defenders of lay democracy bore the scorn of senior officials as this afternoon's Conference session drew to a close, as they objected to the unilateral action of the President in altering the order of business for the Rules debate.



The Rule Book is clear that the order of business is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to determine and for Conference to approve.



The price of lay democracy is eternal vigilance, and SOC are now having to consider what to do about this. If Card Vote One passes Rule Amendment 11 then the NEC should withdraw 13 and 14 should be put to Conference. (IMHO)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Mutual animosity

I'm now playing catch up with reports from UNISON Conference, avoiding some of the main issues, which are more than adequately covered elsewhere as UNISON's online presence continues to improve.



(Although there remain some amusing contradictions. On Monday, Local Government Conference Delegates were exhorted to use Twitter. On Tuesday delegates at National Delegate Conference were instructed not to tweet from the Conference Hall!)



Official coverage of Conference rightly focuses on key debates, and is necessarily positive in tone. Since Conference is our Parliament, not a rally, there are always also other tales to tell.



Yesterday morning a new delegate from Lambeth unsuccesfully moved an amendment to strengthen a worthy motion on mutuals from the West Midlands Region, by clarifying a preference for public delivery of public services.



The opposition to the amendment, which carried Conference with it, was founded on the misconception that the amendment would have "tied the hands" of branches who faced no option but to negotiate around the creation of mutuals.



This wilful, yet effective, misreading of the amendment really reflected the feeling in some quarters, expressed by a delegate from the Newham branch at Local Government Conference, that mutuals may be a "lesser evil" which we should embrace.



This is exactly where we began the debate about ALMOs, with some national officials, believing Council housing to be doomed, tried to "sell" them to UNISON members.



ALMOs were and are a half-way house to privatisation, and this is the threat posed by mutuals. We need to resist all attempts to remove services from the public sector - whilst of course engaging with changes where they cannot be prevented to protect the interests of our members and organise workers whoever employs them.



And, just as with ALMOs, in a year or two the position Lambeth lost this year will be the policy of our Conference and our NEC.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The meaning of Thursday afternoon

Continuing with irregular and idiosyncratic blogging from UNISON Conference, I'll pass comment on the Thursday afternoon of Conference, traditionally given over to debating Amendments to our Rule Book.

In the late 90s, debates over Rules became the occasion for "shadow boxing" in a controversy occasioned by widespread belief that there had been political misuse of the Union's disciplinary rules.

Controversy around the Union's Rule Book subsided once a (then newly elected) General Secretary (one D Prentis) took office and signalled a more tolerant approach.

However, since 2006 there have been a number of high profile cases in which many activists have perceived once more the political misuse of our disciplinary procedures against socialist activists critical of our leadership.

These cases - debate about which cannot take place at our National Executive Council or any of its Committees, never mind at our National Delegate Conference - have created a poisonous atmosphere in some quarters, where activists fear misuse of the disciplinary procedures (or inappropriate Regional supervision of branches). Rejection of the use of administrative means to resolve political differences goes way beyond the ranks of "the left" and has now reached a point at which there is a breakdown of trust between the platform and the floor at Conference.

It is for this reason, amongst others, that Conference rejected Rule Amendment 20, which would have introduced a new Schedule (F) governing branch finances. A majority of Conference delegates clearly did not trust the assurances given by the Chair of the Finance Committee that this rule change would not undermine branch autonomy. This was not a personal judgement about the Chair of Finance, but a political judgement about the likely future conduct of UNISON nationally, reasonably informed by evidence of past behaviour.

Similarly, the refusal of Conference to support an amendment to Rule I intended to ease the expulsion of fascists, on the basis of concerns that the Rule could be misused to attack socialists, was not so much a criticism of the precise Rule Amendment, as an expression of mistrust. It is easy to see why such mistrust exists on the basis of accurate understanding of the conduct of certain recent cases.

As I write we do not have the result of Card Vote 1, on Rule Amendment 11 from Bolton branch, which seeks to impose a two year limit on the sanction of being debarred from holding UNISON office. However, we do know that the NEC's "compromise" suggestion of a five year ban could not carry even a simple majority (let alone the two thirds required to amend a rule).

This result too reflected an anger, directed at the platform, over the perceived abuse of our disciplinary procedures to settle political scores.

For as long as the floor of Conference believes that the NEC cannot be relied upon to ensure fairness and impartiality in the application of UNISON's disciplinary rules, then our NEC will struggle to secure support even for Rule Amendments which may very well be in the best interests of our members.

On Tuesday, our General Secretary said that there were "no enemies in the hall" - it will be for the incoming NEC to consider how to give effect to this statement in practice. Can we redirect resources being wasted on avoidable litigation? Can we steer officials away from recommending disciplinary charges which are politically motivated? Can we call a halt to processes which have yet to reach their final conclusion in order to reconsider whether they are in the best interests of our members? Can we look into past cases in order to consider whether UNISON is responsible for injustices and - if so - how to remedy them?

In a world in which members of the Manchester branch, at the Peoples' History Museum, can host an exhibition full of praise for the Lambeth branch, surely anything is possible...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Looking forward to the pensions debate

Following on from yesterday's keynote speech from our General Secretary - and a positive and well attended fringe meeting organised by the Kirklees branch and addressed by Alex Kenny of the NUT and Sue Bond of PCS - this morning sees UNISON Conference debate Composite B on Pensions.



The Composite motion, which runs to four pages and stands in the names of seven branches, the National Women's Committee, Scotland and the NEC. It will be augmented by an NEC policy statement which brings the content of the Composite up to date.



I hope that the debate gets beyond anger to begin to deal with some practical questions.



First, if we are to mobilise our members to achieve the impressive result achieved by the NUT in their national postal ballot, we need an online pensions calculator as they have (in fact we need two, one for the NHS Pension and one for the LGPS).



Secondly, once we have educated - and agitated - members we need to organise for action. This means we need to improve our structures to direct this dispute, not least by enhancing Regional representation on the LGPS Campaign group which reports to the Service Group Liaison Committee.



Thirdly, we need to begin an inclusive discussion of tactics for industrial action. This cannot be conducted in private. Whilst there is a risk that the Government and employers may be able to witness our discussing tactics, there is a bigger risk if we don't involve members and activists in this debate.



I hope today's debate sets us off on the right course to fight and win the battle for the survival of public service pensions.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A call to arms - in the battle with the real enemies

Dave Prentis issued his "call to arms" today to a Conference which had been waiting to hear this.



His well received, and militant, speech dealt not only with the issue of the moment - the increasing inevitability of sustained and coordinated joint union action to defend our pensions.



As well as attacking the Coalition Government, our General Secretary was sharply critical of the Labour leadership, rejecting Ed Ball's unsolicted advice to refrain from strike action. Dave said that, in future, we will only support Labour politicians who support us.



A couple of remarks were particularly noteworthy to insiders. Dave singled out a few key activists for praise by name, the first two of whom, Mike Tucker (Southampton) and John Burgess (Barnet) are leftwing Branch Secretaries often associated with the United Left. (Mike missed this as he is not at Conference for the first time in many years as he is organising co-ordinated and sustained joint union strike action!)



Dave also said there were "no enemies inside this hall" a remark which optimists in Manchester are reading alongside a statement published today by the (not uninfluential) Communist Party of Britain calling for an end to the use of administrative (and disproportionate) means to resolve political differences.



If this presages an end to avoidable internal strife that will be most welcome.



We need to focus our fire on the Government. Not each other.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The not-quite-debate

You can read elsewhere online more comprehensive coverage of yesterday's first day of UNISON's Local Government Conference.
I was out of the hall for the key debate on pensions awaiting an appointment with my old friends, the Standing Orders Committee (SOC). SOC had ruled out of order a motion from Lambeth which called upon the Service Group Executive (SGE) to provide advice to Regions on how to campaign for "needs" budgets, on the grounds that such radical action could place the union in legal jeopardy.
Although the SOC were not persuaded to change their mind, the Chair did explain to me in outline their reasons. It seems that some helpful soul had flagged our motion up as one on which SOC would need legal advice, and that they had then been fortunate enough to get such advice from a most imaginative source.
First, SOC told me that, on their reading of our Rule Book, UNISON has a general duty to act within the law and that this extends to not encouraging others to take unlawful action.
I did point out that we have existing policy in support of civil disobedience in the fight for civil rights for disabled people and that this novel and restrictive interpretation would not have permitted us even to have discussed this established policy, but to no avail.
Secondly, SOC were concerned that, were UNISON to encourage a local authority to set a "needs" budget and were this to lead (in some unspecified way) to a breakdown in some particular service, then service users might take legal action against UNISON as much as against the authority itself.
Finding this argument unconvincing I asked if this logic did not suggest that branches who failed to fight in defence of a threatened service (contrary to our aims and objectives as set out in Rule B) might not face similar threats of litigation.
Thirdly, SOC were worried that local authorities defending litigation brought against them as a result of their having followed our suggestion to set a "needs" budget might seek to "join" UNISON as co-respndents as has been tried (without success) in some equal pay litigation.
All in all, the reasoning of SOC seemed threadbare at best. However, SOC did agree to circulate the legal advice to Regions - and to report this fact to Conference, and - later in the afternoon, Conference agreed Motion 3 as amended, which commits us to campaign for "parallel" budgets.
(Parallel budgets are "needs" budgets minus the intention to implement them).
Therefore we did, in the end, have the debate we wanted, albeit we weren't permitted to get anywhere near it's logical conclusion.
This debate will continue...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Industrial Action and accountability

Today's call to arms from our General Secretary raises once more the question of how to give direction to, and take decisions about, large scale industrial action, a subject which I touched upon after the last NEC meeting (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2011/06/pensions-how-too-few-cooks-could-spoil.html).



Where an industrial dispute involves a group of workers who can reasonably be gathered together in one meeting hall (or footbal stadium) then decisions on both the tactics for action and the outcome of any negotiations can - and should - be put to the workers collectively.



This is the ideal of labour movement democracy to which we should aspire - and to which we ought to do our best to approximate when a dispute involves workers who, by virtue of the numbers and geographical distribution of those involved, cannot possibly be brought together for a single discussion and decision.



I hope that this week in Manchester delegates elected by, and accountable to, the million plus UNISON members who will soon be called upon to strike to defend our pensions, will be enabled to debate not only how we mobilise our members to act, but also the nature of the action for which we shall mobilise, and the means that we shall use to ensure that the conduct of the dispute, and any negotiations, is meaningfully and democratically controlled by the membership.



I'll update the blog as the week goes by and let you know how we're getting on.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pay freeze hits the low paid hardest - official

Later today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications) will publish research which demonstrates how inflation is hitting the poor hardest (http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/14/poor-hit-higher-rate-inflation-than-rich?cat=business&type=article).



Although price inflation is measured on the basis of composite price indices which reflect an "average" pattern of household expenditure, the spending patterns of real people vary with household income.



Broadly speaking, the lower the income of a household the greater the proportion of that income spent on food and fuel, two categories of goods which have seen prices rising way above average "inflation" in recent years.



For those of us now well into a pay freeze this means that - whilst all of us are worse off in "real terms" (as our frozen salary can purchase fewer goods and services with each passing year) this hit to living standards is felt hardest by the lowest paid.



The difference is significant. According to the IFS, someone whose frozen salary placed them in the top fifth of households by income (a Chief Executive say) has seen their standard of living fall by 2.7% annually over the period 2008-2010, whereas someone whose frozen pay leaves them in the lowest fifth has seen their standard of living fall by 4.3% annually over the same period (so that their, already much lower, standard of living has been more than half again as fast).



Right now we need to prepare to fight for our pensions - not least because the figures above underline the likelihood of a crippling exodus of the lower paid from pension schemes if the Government achieves its twin aims of reducing their value and increasing their cost.



However - the pent up pressure of a pay freeze will also grow, and the time is coming when we shall mobilise our members against this. The IFS research helps to make the case, I would suggest, for a flat rate claim that does the most to help the lowest paid, who are being hardest hit by the freeze.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

And another thing...

Shortly after blogging the post immediately below, TIGMOO alerted me to this informative post on the ToUChstone blog - http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/06/what-can-we-learn-from-european-public-service-mutuals/.



This useful summary of recent work on examples of mutualised delivery of public services elsewhere in Europe seems to underline the point that such "new models of service delivery" are best seen as possibly complementing public delivery of public services.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Un-cooperative Council...

David Cameron's "Big Society" is being repackaged in appealingly "mutual" boxes and offered to local people in Lambeth, and elsewhere, as a supposed alternative to cuts in public services.

Mutualism has a proud record and - I hope - a strong future in financial services and retail. Worker Co-operatives have shown that they can compete and survive in manufacturing (not least because they aren't burdened by the need to support rentier shareholders who contribute nothing to wealth creation).

However the case for mutuals as a replacement for the state in the delivery of core public services has not been made and - in Lambeth - its most enthusiastic adherents are finding the case hard to make.

Word reaches your humble blogger of an attempt by a Councillor to consult local people on whether volunteers can be recruited to keep an Adventure Playground open.

When the one parent who turned up expressed their opposition the eager Councillor reportedly asked staff if, after they had all been made redundant, they might come back as volunteers to keep the service running.

I understand that there was little enthusiasm for this particular "alternative to cuts".

Perhaps the answer to the question asked by staff invited to go on working for nothing after they had been sacked ("How shall we eat?") is that their food could be prepared by whichever genius wove the fabulous clothing (visible only to those who truly understand the journey to a Co-operative Council) worn by our Council Leader when he visits other boroughs to share Lambeth's vision?

The attempted imposition of a mutual or co-operative model of service delivery in an area subject to savage cuts disrespects the memory of the Rochdale Pioneers and contradicts the values for which our Council is supposed to stand.

If we wish to defend and improve public services (encouraging diverse models of service delivery where this is appropriate and beneficial) then we need to take on the Government - not do their bidding.

This requires a different kind of co-operation, between unions, communities and local Labour Parties in a campaign against all cuts in public services.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The sound of one hand clapping?

The increasingly prompt and comprehensive official reporting from UNISON NEC meetings continues today, with an entirely appropriate emphasis upon the key debate on the defence of public service pensions.

I will post my personal report here when I get it done but, in the mean time, will share another of those little episodes that makes the experience of life on the UNISON NEC occasionally surreal.

It’s all about “collective responsibility” and how it can be interpreted.

Fifteen years ago NEC members attending UNISON Conference (as we are individually entitled to by Rule) had the right to speak at the Conference (which is also in accordance with Rule). On rare occasions, NEC members would exercise their individual right to speak against the line of the majority of the NEC, as Roger Bannister did in 1997 in support of the Hillingdon Hospital strikers.

Since then, over the years, an ever more stringent interpretation of what is misdescribed as “collective responsibility” of the NEC has been adopted. First, NEC members were prohibited from speaking unless chosen to do so by the NEC and speaking in support of NEC policy (this is not supported by our Rule Book, but as the President formally decides who to call to speak at Conference, it has effectively been imposed).

Then, NEC members were prohibited from attending Conference as delegates from branches (so that they could not speak, in line with a branch mandate, in a way which might not support NEC policy). Because “collective responsibility” is for life, not just for Conference, NEC members are also now subject to a requirement, at meetings of the NEC, not to speak or vote against decisions taken by NEC Committees of which they are members.

Today however we were advised of a further development in UNISON democracy for National Delegate Conference 2011, as NEC members were advised by our President that loud applause from NEC members on the platform for speakers opposing the line of the NEC was a breach of “collective responsibility” and could lead to NEC members being stripped of their Conference credentials and sent home.

In the run up to a Conference at which the NEC is supporting virtually every motion and amendment on the agenda you might think this a bizarre and unjustifiable decision. I (as an NEC member allegedly bound by this strange concept of “collective responsibility”) could not possibly comment.

Perhaps for next year we could replace the NEC with a trained studio audience who can be relied upon to applaud in all the right places?

Pensions - how too few cooks could spoil the broth

I will report fully on today's UNISON NEC meeting shortly, but will mention a couple of things which need specific thought in advance.

The great bulk of today's vital discussion on the coming strike in defence of our pensions was positive and unifying.

Dave Prentis described the forthcoming action on 30 June as the "first wave", whilst resisting being drawn on a date by which we hope to move into action ourselves.

I was with the minority of NEC members who felt we should be setting ourselves a target date - but I accept that the majority are equally determined to see action. I welcome the positive encouragement to UNISON branches to attend, with our banners at demonstrations called by the striking unions on 30 June.

We must now intensify efforts to inform and enrage our members about the Tory Coalition Government's plans to force us to pay 50% more for pensions which will be worth 50% less (which is how our General Secretary summarised the plans).

However, regular readers of this blog, Sid and Doris Hoxha, do not come here to read unalloyed praise of the UNISON leadership (UNISON Active has cornered that market anyway). I shall therefore explain why I supported the (flawed) proposal of my friend and comrade, Roger Bannister that we needed a new "strike committee" to oversee the pensions dispute, against the spirited, yet even more flawed, defence of the status quo from the Chair of our Policy Committee.

Although Roger's proposal fell, I think that it would be a mistake to see that as a vote of confidence in our existing arrangements to co-ordinate disputes which cross the sacrosanct boundaries of our autonomous Service Groups.

After the LGPS dispute a few years ago, our largest Service Group, local government, at our Conference, expressed a "lack of confidence" in the Service Group Liaison Committee "as an effective forum to coordinate the defence of the interests of our members." (http://cms.unison.co.uk/MotionText.asp?DocumentID=997508)

A Panglossian defence of existing arrangements is unwise on the brink of the most important dispute for a generation. At a minimum, the "LGPS Campaign Group" which reports in to the Service Group Liaison Committee should be extended so that, as well as representatives of every Sector with members in the LGPS, it incorporates representation from each Regional Local Government Committee.

This would both draw in important voices from the length and breadth of the UK and also address the under representation of members in the NJC sector in local government, without removing the essential voice for members in the smaller sectors.

Those who remember our existing structures as having "worked well last time" are ignoring the dissatisfaction expressed not only by our Local Government Conference in 2007 - but also in the campaign which led to the calling of UNISON's only ever Special Local Government Conference.

If we wish to avoid fractious debates at our Conference this month we need not only to offer a clearer timetable for action but also a better, more representative and more transparent structure to co-ordinate lay leadership of the coming dispute.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Local jobs for local people

The proposed offshoring of jobs by Birmingham Council does seem daft in many ways.

This is - however - the direction in which privatisation leads (and smashing up union organisation by Regional supervision can do lasting damage to the ability of workers to resist it would seem).

My own employer, whilst pleading its commitment to fighting local worklessness, fails to deny that it might tolerate jobs being moved out of the borough on privatisation to save money.

I'm not against "offshoring" jobs for nationalist reasons. I am not one of the sad twits who think that the job of socialists is to "rebuild Britain." (It is rather to organise the working class).

I am, however, a local government worker and I therefore believe in "local jobs for local people" - meaning that local government should aim to create employment within the "travel to work area" of its citizens.

Seriously - we need to defend the idea that local government should create employment for local people. We may have a fight on our hands.

Update on Sunday afternoon - full marks to John of Barnet for this timely warning to our members.

UNISON Labour What?

UNISON Labour Link should be to the fore of the mind of UNISON activists as the biennial elections for half of the National Committee are now upon us.

Of course that may not be the case. Many UNISON members are not even aware that we are affiliated to the Labour Party, since the fact of this affiliation is as embarrassing to our leadership sometimes as it was to New Labour.

After all, we had thirteen years of a (supposedly) Labour Government which took privatisation to places the Tories had never dreamed of, whilst UNISON's affiliation to the Party in Government seemed to leave us devoid of influence.

UNISON Labour Link has been the most consistently inadequate part of our national trade union, if you judge it by what it has achieved for our members (if you judge it by what it has achieved for the Labour leadership you might arrive at a different conclusion of course).

Socialist UNISON members in the Labour Party certainly need to organise to ensure that we stand candidates in these elections, as we cannot continue to have members of a national UNISON Committee who think that the interests of the Party leadership come first.

UNISON Labour Link needs to be used to press for UNISON policies in the Labour Party (whether in Government or Opposition). I respect those who want to build an alternative to the Labour Party, whilst looking forward to the time when they realise that won't happen.

We need UNISON's voice to the Labour Party to be articulated by those who want to be forceful in the name of our members - not those who want to be Members of Parliament!

One thing that I am sure that the Labour Link is not meant to be for is to enable paid officials to try to develop an alternative leadership in branches under Regional supervision. I am pleased to think that I must have been misled by those who have led me to think that such a possibility exists...