Responding to the Government on pensions - business unionism or organising unions?

The Government's "final offers" in the three unfunded "pay as you go" major public service pension schemes have been received with less than unalloyed joy (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/116422).

The largest teachers' union is recommending rejection (in common with unions representing a clear majority of the unionised members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme, and is campaigning for further action (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/15209).

The largest civil service union, representing the majority of unionised members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme is also recommending rejection and campaigning for further action (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/28-march--vote-yes/index.cfm).

From the largest health union though there is as yet no recommendation (to reject or otherwise) (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2624), This is because our Health Service Group Executive (SGE) will not meet to make a recommendation until 21 March.

This doesn't stop our Head of Health from opining - on our website - that; "The final proposals on the new NHS pension scheme released today have changed significantly from where the negotiations first started." This is (of course) almost inevitably true of lengthy negotiations in which the Government clearly started with wild proposals such as 1/100th accrual rates. The question surely isn't "have they moved at all?" It is; "have they moved significantly since the 2 November proposals which we rejected and against which our members in health took their first national action in a generation?"

Since the extent to which the Government had shifted by 2 November was so inadequate that we called for strike action, to justify "selling" an offer on which the elected leadership have yet to make a recommendation, national officials really should offer an honest assessment of what further progress has been made. This is all the more important since the Chief Secretary to the Treasury claimed on 20 December that the "Heads of Agreement" "deliver the Government's key objectives in full, and do so with no new money since our November offer" (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_cst_201211.htm). If that isn't true we should be able to spell out why it isn't. If it is true then we should be honest with our members and not pretend to have achieved more than we have.

We are also told by our Head of Health that ""Key to the changes that UNISON has secured is success in keeping the fair deal. This is particularly significant in the light of NHS reforms because it allows outsourced staff to remain in the pension scheme."

Danny Alexander (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_cst_201211.htm) says about this; "Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the Fair Deal provision and extend access for transferring staff.

The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them."

A cynic might say that our message to our members might therefore be; "don't worry if we fail to prevent the privatisation of your job, because - since we also failed to protect the value of your pensions, your new private employers have signed up to keep them."

In further shameless marketing of a negotiated outcome yet to receive the endorsement of elected leaders, we are also told that; "In this harsh economic climate it was crucial to ensure that no health worker earning less than £26,000 a year should be hit with an increase in their pension payments this year."

Leaving aside the question of whether those enjoying the fabulous lifestyle which £27,000 brings aren't also feeling the pinch just a bit (as are even those who enjoy the better living standards of our national negotiators), this desperate attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear also rather begs the question of what our health service members are to do when all pension contributions go up next year - when there is perhaps still just an outside chance that there will still be a "harsh economic climate".

The propoganda in favour of the Government offer on the UNISON website concludes with the observation that "In addition, scheme members within 10 years of retirement will receive protection."

Whether we should congratulate ourselves on protecting members on the basis of age (and whether that is really consistent with our Rule Book opposition to age discrimination) is one question. A more important question is why we should present this as part of the reason to accept a worse pensions deal now when it had already been offered to us on 2 November (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_cst_021111.htm). We already had this protection for those within ten years of retirement before we notified the employers of our strike on 30 November. If we struck in spite of it then it can hardly be part of a victory achieved by that action.

I have sat through more than one too many NEC meeting at which sycophants have praised our "world class" negotiators to now join in such a chorus of idiocy in relation to the pathetic "offer" which "we" have "negotiated" for our members in the NHS Pension Scheme.

I cannot believe that any trade unionist worth their salt would vote to recommend this to members in a ballot, bearing in mind that anything other than a clear recommendation to reject will amount to a seal of approval from the pre-eminent health service trade union to a new pension scheme which will deliver the Government's objectives that health workers work longer and pay more to get less.

A democrat interested in member participation might think that we should delay any ballot to enable our Health Service Group Conference - which meets in a few weeks (http://cms.unison.co.uk/ConferenceDetail.asp?ConferenceID=285) to consider and approve (or amend or reject) a proposed recommendation to our members in the ballot (proposed to Conference by the SGE).

A trade union leadership acting with self confidence and a clear conscience would certainly adopt such an approach.

Regular readers Sid and Doris Marxist-Leninist will have picked up that I am unimpressed with the Government's "final offer" to our health service members, but of course that is neither here nor there. I am not a health worker and, as an NEC member, my views have no greater weight than those of any other interfering blogger.

However, we are a trade union, not an opinion polling company. We don't - or at least ought not to - seek the views of members on a question such as this in the abstract, but as part of a plan to build and strengthen our organisation. Therefore the views of our activists are very important, as they are the builders of our organisation.

If - and I merely hypothesise here - we were to embark upon a ballot with an SGE recommendation to accept which was seen by many activists to have been influenced by the sort of inappropriate "selling" of a dire Government "offer" which today shames our UNISON website, we would alienate some of our best activists. Similarly if a ballot were to commence without a recommendation agreed through the appropriate lay structures that would be a gross abdication of responsibility - and would be tantamount to a recommendation to accept as it would signify the unwillingness - or inability - of the trade union to fight on for a better deal.

If, however, Conference makes a recommendation, as was the case (in health) for Agenda for Change and (in local government) for Single Status, then - like it or loathe it - the recommendation has democratic legitimacy. The legacy of bitterness threatened by the approach of leaving it all to the SGE might thereby be avoided.

An organising union would ask Health Service Group Conference to make a recommendation to members in a ballot on the NHS Pension Scheme. A business union would sooner leave it to the SGE. Which is UNISON?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

International Women's Day - an inappropriate contribution

David Cameron (of all people) is using International Women's Day to claim that his Government gives a high priority to ending violence against women and girls (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/blackberry/p.html?id=1327807).



Which is odd - because the evidence is that the Government's austerity programme is doing considerable damage to vital services (http://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/publications-research/gender/professor-sylvia-walby-reports-on-the-impact-of-cuts-on-violence-against-women-services-2.html).



Thirty-one percent of the funding to the domestic violence and sexual abuse sector from local authorities was cut between 2010/11 to 2011/12, a reduction from £7.8 million to £5.4 million.



The hypocrisy of this Government is so brazen it isn't even shocking any more.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Health workers defend the NHS as their pensions are smashed

Whilst in local government we wait (and wait) for the Government to give our negotiators the nod so that we can be told what agreement has been arrived at for members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) ahead of a ballot, our members in the health service are already being notified of next month's increase in pension contributions, against which we all took strike action on 30 November.

The GMB have made a point of expressing outrage that the Government have imposed the contribution increase whilst negotiations continue (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i-Sk4HW-A_VXgtG4snzz1GdSlm6A?docId=N0961591331124109201A)

In UNISON our Health Service Group Executive (SGE) will have to determine it's recommendation to our members in a forthcoming ballot. UNITE's equivalent lay leadership body (the National Industrial Sector Committee - NISC) is recommending rejection.

UNITE's consultative ballot of their health service members, which opened a week ago and closes on 19 March, is accompanied by a clear and persuasive recommendation to reject the current proposals (http://www.unitetheunion.org/resources/pensions/protecting_pensions_for_our_pu/health_sector_consultative_bal.aspx).

Our website, on the other hand, still hosts the commentary on the Heads of Agreement (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B5774.pdf) about which I have blogged criticism before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2011/12/nhs-pensions-comments-on-commentary.html?m=0).

This document certainly compares unfavourably with the clarity of UNITE's communication to their members - and I hope that plans are in hand for a much more straightforward communication to our members of whatever recommendation our Health SGE decides to make.

Ultimately though, unless the outrage of the GMB or the rejection from UNITE is accompanied by an attempt to persuade members to take further strike action it will end up no different from the deplorable comment reportedly made by a UNISON official that "this was always about damage limitation".

I spent this evening at a very positive rally of (predominantly) health workers committed to defending our NHS (http://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial/index.cfm?mins=395&minors=371&majorsubjectID=8).

The tools which those health workers have to defend the NHS are, first and foremost, their trade unions. If our trade unions cannot improve upon a pensions offer that health workers should work longer and pay more to get less then we shall struggle to inspire confidence in health service (and other) members to use their trade unions to fight to defend our health service.

The speaker who told this evening's rally that we weren't there about pay or pensions but to defend the NHS was much more wrong than right. David Cameron, George Osborne and Andrew Lansley (with their willing stooges Clegg and Cable) are not pursuing a series of discrete attacks upon the NHS, claimants, the pay and pensions of public sector workers and jobs and services.

The Government plainly have an overarching plan to attack the working class, the Welfare State, claimants and trade union rights. They can see a big picture which our trade union leaders must face up to.

If the utmost priority is the unity of the "Big Three" then - unless that unity is used to wage war back against a Government which has declared war on us - we might as well call it "The Triple Alliance" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1921)) - though on this occasion we would not see two unions letting down a third but all three letting down their members.

The Government have declared war on our movement and our class. If we are to honour the memory of the generation who, having defeated fascism, gave their lives to build the Welfare State in general and the National Health Service in particular, then we must be as determined in our opposition to them as they are in their attacks upon us.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The perils of mobile blogging

The triple publication of the last post on this blog (now corrected) is an error almost as amusing as the Freudian slip in yesterday's NEC report to London UNISON branches, in which I misdescribed the "Rally to Save the NHS" as a rally to defend the NEC...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Broadening the battle lines ahead of M28

Today's Morning Star publishes my review of the Communist Party's pamphlet on the pensions dispute, "Broadening the Battle Lines" by Party Chairman, Bill Greenshields (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/content/view/full/116240).

A focus on the pamphlet - and its argument for a united political campaign by the trade unions to defend public service pensions - and for this campaign to be located as part of a conscious political fight against the government - is timely in the run up to the likely strike action on 28 March (M28).

This Monday I attended, with some other UNISON activists, a local organising meeting with representatives of unions preparing for action on 28 March. Although final decisions will be taken in the light of current consultation with NUT and PCS members, on the ground preparations are being made for action to take place on the day.

Whilst we are not in a position where UNISON will be calling for UK wide strike action on 28 March, it is nevertheless in the interests of UNISON members that any action taken as part of the pensions fight has the maximum impact.

A solidarity presence on picket lines - and attendance by UNISON members at lunchtime or other protests and rallies on the day is the very least we should be aiming for. We may not be able, formally, to advise members to respect picket lines - but we can press employers beforehand for assurances that they won't victimise anyone who does so (and we ought to be prepared to use all the resources of the union to defend any member victimised in those circumstances).

Most importantly, we must do what we can to maximise the political impact of the action set to be taken, and the sacrifice being made, by our sister and brother trade unionists. The point needs to be made, to our own members, to employers, politicians and the local media, that there has been no settlement of the pension disputes in health and local government and that UNISON has current mandates for further action in both sectors.

To put our movement into a better position to wage the long war which has been declared upon us by the Tory Coalition Government we need to do all we can to rebuild the unity which we saw on 30 November, and to do so on the basis of an understanding that these are not normal times.

In these times we do not have normal industrial disputes, to be settled by skilled negotiators so that we can return to "business as usual." In these times every dispute is an act in a larger drama, in which our opponents are planning each move of a deliberate war on the organised working class and the social gains of the past century.

We desperately need the same level of understanding and determination on our side as they show on theirs.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Higher Education Service Group Conference - the unexpurgated version

Fellow UNISON NEC blogger, Max Watson, provides a somewhat fuller report of UNISON's Higher Education Service Group Conference than the official version to which I linked previously (http://maxwatsonunison.blogspot.com/2012/03/anger-and-frustration-over-pensions-in.html?m=1). I shall not repeat his report - which you should read in the original - but will instead offer some comment.



Now that we know that it would be unjustifiable discipline to be taken to task for criticising a Standing Orders Committee (SOC) within UNISON, I can safely observe that SOCs need to remember that their power to rule motions out of order under Rule P.2.3.4.1 is subject to the preamble in Rule P.2.3.4.



This says that the consideration by an SOC of motions which have been submitted to a Conference is "for the purpose of enabling Conference to transact its business effectively."



In the case of a Service Group Conference the relevant business is defined by Rule D.3.4.2 which states that "the policies of a Service Group shall be determined by the Group's Conference."



Therefore an SOC at a Service Group Conference which ruled motions on a key service conditions issue out of order because of minor terminological inexactitude (for example, misdescribing "Principles of Agreement" as "Heads of Agreement") would arguably be acting against Rule P.2.3.4 to frustrate rather than facilitate the purpose of the Conference they are supposed to serve.



There may be those in the UNISON Centre who believe that SOCs exist for the convenience of the office, to shield it from accountability to the elected representatives of our members - but that isn't what the Rule Book endorsed by our membership says.



It's time to call a halt to the atrophy of lay democracy in our trade union - and it sounds as if Higher Education delegates said that loud and clear. I hope this call is heeded without the need for too much strife - but it must be heeded.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions - a fractured fight we need to repair

Following the unprecedented and impressive unity of purpose shown by trade unionists across the UK on 30 November, the "sector by sector" approach has now bequeathed us an entirely predictable fracturing of the struggle.

Some important trade unions - including PCS (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/AB5B658A-34D0-40CE-8FDF94699F6C245E), NUT (http://www.teachers.org.uk/pensions) and UCU (http://markcampbell4gs.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/ucu-nec-unanimously-agree-to-join-with-nut-and-pcs-in-strike-action-on-march-28th/) are consulting their members about further action on 28 March. This action is likely to be concentrated amongst trade unionists in the teachers' and civil service pension funds.

Within UNISON, members are taking different paths and expressing different views. In Scotland our members in the NHS are resuming strike action (http://unison-scotland.blogspot.com/2012/03/unison-protesters-lobby-health-minister.html?m=1), whilst the same Service Group Executive which supports this action north of the border is prepared to see the mandate for action short of strike action in the Ambulance sector expire unused (http://news.nwasunison.com/2012/03/03/news-%e2%80%93-pensions-dispute-and-action-short-of-strike-for-ambulance-members/). Since health workers have already been notified of the imposition in April of the pension contribution increases against which they struck in November, the "Scottish strategy" seems the only way to keep a fight for decent pensions going for those in the NHS Pension Scheme.

As for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), the (funded) odd one out of the "big four" public sector pension schemes, we wait to hear if the Government will endorse proposals agreed by the negotiators. The emerging proposals which sound as if they were almost being marketed at the Community Service Group Conference (http://grayee.blogspot.com/2012/03/pensions-what-next-for-pensions-in.html?m=1) had been the subject of vigorous controversy at the Higher Education Service Group.

Whether or not sufficient branches support the call for a Special Local Government Conference ahead of a member ballot on the "big ticket" items for the 2014 LGPS, there could be considerable controversy - and it is established that branches and Regions may make their own recommendation in a ballot such as that envisaged in the next few weeks.

The premature shift away from a united front of all unions has shifted UNISON's leadership from the forefront to the sidelines of the struggle over public sector pensions. It will be up to UNISON's membership to decide if they (and we) stay there.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The 35 MPs who supported us

A hat tip to PCS for publishing the list of 35 MPs who supported all the public and private sector occupational pensioners whose lifetime pensions were reduced by 15% in value at a stroke by George Osborne in June 2010 when he changed the basis on which our pensions were to be uprated from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/6374B777-A9FF-4289-9652A49C5B55FA41).



It is shameful that only 20 Labour MPs were part of this principled minority. The equivocation of the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party on this question epitomises the weakness which may doom us to further terms of Tory rule.



Last year's UNISON Conference condemned the change in uprating of pensions and called on the National Executive Council to mount a substantial campaign amongst members against the change from RPI to CPI and to call on the Labour Link to work to gain a commitment from the Labour party to repeal this change when re-elected (http://cms.unison.co.uk/MotionText.asp?DocumentID=1002411).



We must not cease this fight just because the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party have been shown to be a near terminal disappointment. Indeed, were we to be discouraged by the inadequacy of Her Majesty's Opposition right now, we might just as well each seek our own death in service benefits.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

"Conference also discussed the government attack on public service pensions"

I am given to understand that the extract above from the report on our website of yesterday's Higher Education Service Group Conference (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7635) - which is in fact the last sentence of the report - may somewhat understate the importance of that debate and the significance of the events leading up to it.



Regular readers Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak may well want to learn more about a day long stand off between a Conference and its Standing Orders Committee. Others (in the vicinity of Euston Road) may be given pause for thought.



I'm looking forward to a full report from a reliable source (http://maxwatsonunison.blogspot.com/).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Warm words in the Pay Ice Age

In case any readers of this blog thought that the local government employers were unfeeling as they refuse once more to make a pay award, although prices have now risen by 13% since they last did so, I thought I should share with you the following extract from Tuesday's letter from the employers to the trade union side Secretaries (in which the employers refuse to go to ACAS);

"The difficult decision to not make a pay offer was made in response to the unprecedented financial situation facing councils. Nevertheless the Employers are keen to stress how much they appreciate the hard work and commitment of the local government workforce and understand that asking them to accept a third year without a nationally-determined pay increase will come as a disappointment."

It certainly gives a warm feeling to know how much our "hard work and commitment" is "appreciated." Sadly this warm feeling doesn't unfreeze our pay!

As for a "disappointment", I think what is more disappointing than the predictable intransigence of the employers is the failure of the trade union side clearly to put the option of industrial action before our members.

It is completely mistaken to suppose that we can "build" for action next year against the fourth year of pay freeze whilst silently swallowing the third year now. Leadership is not shown by only asking members questions to which you already anticipate a positive answer.

What is required, for workers within the NJC and all our bargaining groups, is a continuing campaign against the pay freeze, with the aim of encouraging UNISON members to be prepared for, and take, sustained industrial action, coordinated on the widest possible basis.
At a minimum we need - now - a vigorous campaign to mobilise political opposition to the pay freeze in local government (and beyond).

We ought, for example, to be able to secure sufficient signatures on an e-petition to force a debate in Parliament, which would provide a focus for lobbying and to raise the arguments for action with our members.

I fear though that the answer to the question "when shall we fight the pay freeze?" always seems to be "next year" and that - if our leadership won't even clearly and formally ask our members the question about industrial action in 2012 - we ourselves have thereby made it harder to see how we can get a positive answer to that question in 2013.

The pay freeze is part of the same ideological anti-working class offensive as the attack on our pensions and the massive programme of spending cuts. We desperately need to start showing the same determination as is shown by our enemies.

Otherwise the pay freeze could become a Pay Ice Age, which will never be defrosted by warm weasel words from the employers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

LGPS - what's the hurry?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that getting an email bulletin about pensions negotiations should be a cause of concern to anyone with an interest in their welfare in old age.

Yesterday's UNISON Focus is a case in point. First, because our negotiators appear to have reached a tentative understanding with the employers' side negotiators about the so-called "big ticket items" for the future of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) but, until we know the views of the Government we mere scheme members cannot know the terms of the understanding.

Secondly, because we are told that there will be a member ballot in March (because we have apparently bought into an unnecessarily tight timetable as the "price" of the Government's previous (and unavoidable) acceptance of the pointlessness (from their own point of view) of forcing through contribution increases before 2014).

To call a ballot to a timetable which will ensure that few branches will have an opportunity to give proper consideration to a recommendation to our members smacks of an approach in which we will be presented with an outcome "which is the best that can be achieved by negotiation."

Our negotiators won't try too brazenly to "sell" this outcome to us (although they will remind us of just how far this outcome is from the Government's opening position many months ago)(as every negotiated outcome always would have been).

They will however also explain just how prolonged and sustained the strike action would need to be that would stand any chance of improving on this outcome.

If all this happens in the next month that will betray an agenda to acquiesce in a poorer pensions settlement for the future.

Only if we are given adequate time for decisionmaking and a real debate between opposing views can we credibly claim that our trade union is still fighting for our pensions.

And, of course, the real tragedy is that - after a brief burst of apparent understanding in the autumn, we seem to have retreated to the mistaken view that what we have been engaged in has been, primarily, an industrial dispute against pensions, when in fact it has been an important moment in an ideological war being waged against our members and our class.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Continuing to resist the cuts

Numerous London Borough Councils meet tonight to set budgets for 2012/13 which will give effect to Government policy to remove millions of pounds of annual public spending from the city. Across just the inner South London boroughs of Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, this year's cuts total some £66 Million.

These cuts come on top of the devastating cuts made in the current financial year, and are the second year of a four year programme. However, given that austerity policies are predictably failing to deal with the public sector deficit (in fact making it worse) there must be every possibility that Central Government will look for even more savings from local Councils.

When they do, it is virtually certain that they will once again take the most from those geographical areas which can least afford to lose their social infrastructure - deprived (and predominantly Labour voting) areas, primarily in the North and Inner London. The audacity - and political spite - with which this Government smashes up public services is remarkable.

The impact of spending cuts on people's lives is cumulative and will be felt increasingly with the passage of time. For each individual, the loss of a service which is eliminated (or has its opening hours reduced) is noticed at a different point. Some cuts - like the total loss of independent careers advice to this year's school leavers - are large and dramatic. Others - such as the near total closure of a particular Adventure Playground - have a smaller, more localised and more gradual impact.

What we are witnessing, courtesy of the Coalition Government, is a general withdrawal of services from those who need them most, particularly our young people. It will certainly be the height of hypocrisy if Liberal and Conservative opposition Councillors in Labour Councils pose as opponents of spending cuts dictated by their own Government.

However, neither the political nor the industrial wings of our labour movement emerge from the last year of cuts with much credit, and there are, at present, too few signs of hope for the coming year.

Labour Councils are doing too little to distinguish themselves from "an executive arm of the Government", as they were tellingly described in a contribution from the Tenants' Council at Lambeth's last Cabinet meeting. That this shortcoming exists under a Party leadership seemingly more concerned with not appearing to be "deficit-deniers" than with the social consequences of the cuts is, perhaps, not surprising. It does however signify the weakness of the left within the Party that the debate about what else might be done has hardly started.

Equally disappointing though, it has to be said, has been the response of the trade unions. With some creditable local exceptions, the union movement, mired in the defeatism that says "damage limitation" is the peak of our aspirations, has more often than not been as much about implementing, as about resisting cuts. Again, a large part of the explanation must lie with a national leadership apparently unwilling to go beyond a one-off demonstration and a one-day strike.

The outlook is bleak - but that's no excuse for giving in to the comfortable option of despair. Local trade union activists who will, I hope, be lobbying tonight's Council meetings to express opposition to the savage spending cuts of the Tory Coalition (whoever implements them) must - tomorrow and each day thereafter - get on with building and renewing the organisation and determination of our trade union branches, and the links with local anti-cuts campaigns.

We have a fight on our hands.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Striking back against bullying

Solidarity to more than 100 GMB members at Swindon's South Western Hospital, today taking their fifth day of strike action against racism and bullying (http://union-news.co.uk/2012/02/gmb-calls-for-corporate-tax-dodging-probe-as-members-strike-again/).



Bullying at work can be amongst the most dispiriting casework with which union activists have to deal, often leading to unjust and unsatisfactory outcomes for victims. It's good to see a case where there is hope for justice.



Not in every case is it possible to mobilise a collective response, but - where it is - then strike action is the best and most empowering response to workplace injustice. (In this case it also appears to effective - http://union-news.co.uk/2012/02/bullying-manager-resigns-but-strike-set-to-continue/).



Hat tip Union News.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

People, Charters and Voices

Tonight's Annual Meeting of Lambeth Trades Council heard a speaker on the Peoples' Charter, which is now supported, in line with TUC policy, by an impressive array of trade unions (http://www.thepeoplescharter.org/index.php/supporters-unions). The constructive joint working now taking place between the Charter and the Coalition of Resistance mirrors at a national level the mutual support shown locally between the Trades Council and Lambeth Save Our Services.



One name sadly still absent from the list of unions supporting the Charter is that of UNISON. Our "Million Voices" campaign (now supported by more than 50,000 people - http://www.unison.org.uk/million/) need not be counterposed to the Charter, which has a useful role in bringing together the alternative to the policies of the Coalition Government.



The Charter provides an answer (in the same way UNISON's Alternative Budget does) to the question "what's your alternative then?" which is inevitably posed when we tell politicians to stop making cuts. Because the Charter is not simply the property of any one Union, it is a more viable tool for joint union campaigning than "Million Voices" - and it is clear that joint union campaigning is what is required.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pensions debate in Parliament

I am blogging the following comment made earlier this afternoon on a previous post;



"Hi - don't know if you're aware or not but my e-petition on the RPI-CPI switch to our pensions is to finally be debated in Parliament on Thursday 1 March 2012. John McDonnell MP presented my petition to the Backbench Business Committee last Tuesday and the following day they announced that the debate would go ahead. If nothing else, hopefully the debate will help raise the awareness of this unfair change which is already affecting thousands of people.



Jim Singer"



Well done Jim!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Broadening the Battle Lines

I've been reading "Broadening the Battle Lines", a pamphlet in which Party President Bill Greenshields gives the perspective of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) on the state of the fight to defend public service pensions (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=231&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&pop=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=183&vmcchk=1&Itemid=183).

At the risk of failing to do justice to an important contribution to a necessary debate, I would summarise its central thesis as being that the trade unions have failed to grasp the fact that the assault on public sector pensions has been an integral part of a wider political attack on our class - and have therefore given too little priority to unity as we have treated this struggle as if it were a "normal" industrial dispute.

I agree wholeheartedly with Greenshields when he points out that; "The unions have successfully mobilised members in great strikes and demonstrations, with millions taking part in industrial action – many for the first time – and millions more encouraged by their struggle. Towns and cities all over Britain have witnessed well-supported and high-spirited marches and rallies, with widespread support from the general public.
A number of the unions have produced alternative economic and political programmes opposing the government's austerity measures. Many trades union councils have linked up with anti-cuts groups and other organisations such as the People's Charter to run successful local campaigns.
Yet, despite all this and the first-class analysis and inspiration provided by some trade union leaders, the movement as a whole has not developed a real strategy for winning."

That last point is, of course, crucial because - in order to have a strategy for winning - we need leaders who believe we are capable of winning. I therefore also agree that; "Such a political and industrial strategy would require a higher level of political understanding of the government's strategy on the part of trade union leaders and members, and as far as possible among the general public. Trade union education, communications, publicity and campaigning have not generally been aimed at developing that understanding. Unsurprisingly, the TUC has done nothing to develop such a consciousness, while the Labour Party leadership has done all it can to prevent it developing.The public sector unions should all now be working together to develop that political understanding among their members and within wider communities."

It is of particular interest that Greenshields points to the argument that European Human Rights law might have a role in protecting industrial action (otherwise unlawful in the UK) needed to respond to an attack on pensions driven in part through the European Union. This is a point which must be taken up in the debate on pensions at UNISON Conference this summer - but also rather more urgently. (If it might not be unlawful to break the anti-union laws then our Standing Orders Committee will need to reconsider the basis on which motions threatening to do such get ruled out of order.)

In the mean time, if the trade unions contrive to engineer an acceptance, in any sector, of wholly unsatisfactory Government proposals for public sector pensions, the white flag which they will thereby raise will also be a green light for a further wave of attacks. This must be avoided.

We should instead pay close attention to the proposals for action set out by Greenshields, which are, in essence (and again at the risk of summarising too far) for a united political campaign by the trade unions to defend public service pensions - and for this campaign to be located as part of a conscious political fight against the Government - regardless of our current differences over industrial strategy.

If I have a criticism of what is, by any standard, a thorough and persuasive contribution to debate, it is that it fails adequately to consider whether, and if so how, the distinct interests of the "trade union bureaucracy", a social group distinct from the working class, may lead elements from this vital layer to play a less than helpful role at such crucial points in the struggle.

You don't have to be a "trot" to think that Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy) still has something to tell us about our movement. The paid officials who can (honestly) say that our pensions dispute "was always about damage limitation" may not simply be failing to understand the interests of our class - they may perhaps reflect the distinct interests of those who do not sell their labour power to employers in either the public or private sector, but whose material interests depend above all upon the institutional continuity (and financial health) of our movement.

This, though, is a relatively small point to set against the sound analysis and sensible recommendations of Greenshields' pamphlet, which I commend.

Those of us who know that we must continue the pensions fight must steer well clear of denunciation of those whose renewed commitment is a prerequisite of success (even if they themselves refuse to believe in the possibility of success).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Electricians defeat employers

It is marvellous to read, on the website of the very group of employers who sought to break the national agreement, the announcement of the total surrender of the employers who were trying to undermine the pay rates of electricians in the construction industry. The contractors who were trying to impose a new national “agreement” which would have cost electricians up to a third of their pay have given up completely in the face of rank and file struggle.

I’m sure that this humiliating climbdown has nothing to do with the fact that the employers’ organisation concerned is changing its name next week.

This tremendous victory has been welcomed in places where you might expect it to be welcomed – and other places too. This is a victory of the rank and file, but UNITE’s victory in court against attempts by the employers to challenge an official industrial action ballot has also been an important ingredient in the electrician's eventual success.

The electricians’ victory is the product both of independent grassroots rank and file mobilisation (including a willingness to take the sort of action which trade unions cannot, under the current legal regime, easily countenance officially) whilst maintaining the support of the official structures of the movement. UNITE, under its present political leadership, have shown a creditable determination to support their members.

Perhaps we can all learn from this dispute the importance of building unity between the rank and file and the leadership. There is certainly a lesson here for anyone who thinks that the best way to respond to an attack on conditions of service is to concede - and this dispute offers hope to all those, such as our members in Southampton, who are fighting on.

Defend Equality

Belated solidarity to PCS members taking strike action today to defend jobs and services at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHCR) (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/88E5B3C3-C240-4060-BF8FDAFC90CEDA96).



Having approached predecessor bodies of the EHCR on various occasions over the years I know that the Equalities Commissions were never adequately resourced in the first place. Since the creation of the EHCR in 2007 we have witnessed the axing of 63% from the organisation's budget and 72% from staffing.



There really could be no clearer indication of the contemptuous attitude of the Tory Government to those on the receiving end of oppression than further reductions in the already paltry resources devoted to addressing such systematic disadvantage.



Now be amongst the first to say "enough!" and sign the e-petition to save the EHRC (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29879 ).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity against the cuts

I was pleased today to address the London Transport Regional Council of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' Union (RMT) (http://rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2816) on behalf of Lambeth Save Our Services (http://lambethsaveourservices.org/).



It was great to be invited to address trade unionists from another industry who had already adopted clear policy to support us in our fight against cuts and who pledged their continuing support.



It was also good to see a friend and comrade, Janine Booth, the first woman to represent London Transport on the RMT's ruling Council of Executives (http://rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/taxonomy/term/146) - and someone who knows a bit about how past generations of Labour Councillors resisted austerity from a Tory Government (http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/resisting-cuts-%E2%80%93-past-present-housmans-170910-17092010).



The RMT on London Transport are a strong and effective trade union, who are also prepared to offer support and solidarity to those who may not have their industrial muscle. Their support for the struggle against public service cuts is most welcome - and we should repay that support by speaking up in their defence when, as is so often the case, they and their General Secretary are traduced in the media.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Open Shuhada Street

I would encourage you to read the letter in today's Morning Star highlighting the continuing harassment of Palestinian citizens of al-Khalil/Hebron (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/115733).



Details of how to support tomorrow's protest against this unjust oppression are available online at http://www.youthagainstsettlements.org/.



I am pleased to report that yesterday's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) agreed a motion for our National Delegate Conference in June which robustly reaffirms our support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Kill the Bill to Save the NHS

As part of his General Secretary's report to yesterday's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) General Secretary Dave Prentis reported that it remains UNISON's objective to defeat Lansley's Health and Social Care Bill, which will restructure our NHS ready for wholesale privatisation.

In welcoming latecomers to this campaign, including the Royal Colleges and the British Medical Association (BMA), our General Secretary noted that, had we had the unified opposition we now have during last year's "pause" the Bill might well be no longer with us. The further a Bill progresses through the Parliamentary process the harder and harder it becomes to stop, as the loss of face for politicians executing a pragmatic "U-turn" increases the closer a Bill comes to Royal Assent.

Nevertheless, with a gathering crecendo of opposition, and an imminent Liberal Democrat Spring Conference likely to debate a motion in opposition to the Bill, there is everything to play for.

Although the NEC was told that all UNISON Regions have been asked to turn out a deputation for the rally on 7 March (http://www.goingtowork.org.uk/rally-to-save-our-nhs/) there is a particular responsibility on London branches to send people along to Central Hall Westminster at 6pm on Wednesday 7 March. This is a citizenship issue which involves all UNISON members, branches and Service Groups - and every branch in London should aim to be well represented.

Whether or not you can be there on 7 March, set aside a little time online to see how you can support UNISON's campaign in defence of the NHS (http://www.unison.org.uk/ournhs/).

Finally, although it was pointed out at yesterday's meeting that this year sees the 64th birthday of the NHS, I can categorically refute any suggestion that I would be part of any collective musical rendition, by the UNISON NEC, of "When I'm 64" (http://www.links2love.com/love_lyrics_125.htm) (not least because, in order to ensure that pensions policy remains congruent with the need for scheme sustainability, this should now be sung as "When I'm 68"...)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unappealing?

I saw my old friend Glenn Kelly today, with a copy of an important legal judgement (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2012/0188_11_2202.html).

Glenn, and three other Socialist Party comrades caught up in the long-running "Defend the Four"/three monkeys case defeated UNISON's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the decision of an employment tribunal that they had been subject to "unjustifiable discipline" by our trade union.

The EAT rejected all UNISON's grounds of appeal and upheld the tribunal decision that "the four" had been subject "unjustifiable discipline" because they had alleged - in good faith - that UNISON (through our Standing Orders Committee)(SOC) had been breaching our Rules at National Delegate Conference 2007.

I think that this outcome is just - but am most pleased that the decision to appeal, which I had criticised as unwise at the time has not, in the end, set any precedent which really damages the interests of our movement (as it might have).

The key part of the judgement, in this regard is "The restrictions on trade union discipline imposed by s.65(2)(c) do not amount to an unlawful contravention of Article 11 ECHR.  Members of unions have a right to hold their unions to account for breaching union rules where the members act in good faith."

The EAT have carefully distinguished the specific legal provision which prohibits a trade union from disciplining members for asserting, in good faith, that the union's rules have been breached (which they consider to be in the public interest) from the more general restrictions on disciplinary action (for example against strike breakers) which (they imply) breach our freedom of association as trade unionists (under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR).

Since the appeal outcome might have been far more damaging for our trade unions than it was, I hope that this development will now signal an end to dispute and argument in this case.

Further appeals (to courts perhaps less knowledgeable about trade unions than the EAT) would renew the risk of a precedent-setting judgement which would place obstacles in the way of unions trying to defend our Article 11 rights. To run such a risk in these circumstances would not be responsible.

As trade unionists, we should fight like tigers for our right to discipline strikebreakers (as we should fight for our right to exclude fascists from our ranks). We would be making a profound mistake were we to go to war to defend our "right" to discipline members of our union who complain (in good faith) of breaches of our Rules.

Today's NEC meeting reflected repeatedly on the fact that we face a very tough year. In anticipation of these times, our General Secretary told last year's National Delegate Conference that there were "no enemies in the hall." We need unity in these times and can well afford to welcome some comrades back into the hall.

I hope that the parties to this legal case will, with moderation and goodwill on both sides, now negotiate a settlement. The prospect of further litigation in this case is surely, from any point of view, unappealing.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unity on an important question

Today's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) agreed an amendment to rule which will, if agreed by Conference, mark the satisfactory conclusion of a tortuous process of making it more straightforward to take action against members of far right organisations within our ranks.



There is a wide understanding within our union - and the wider movement - that, whilst the headline hatred of the far right may shift over decades (from Jewish people, to black people, to muslims) their politics are founded most of all on vitriolic hatred of organised labour. We don't want fascists in our ranks and - thanks to ASLEF - we understand how to give effect to this aspect of our freedom of association within the law.



It is important that, in excluding neo-Nazis and their helpmates from our union, we act lawfully as otherwise we will end up paying compensation to odious people with which they will subsidise the politics of hate.



It has therefore been disappointing that, as a result of unrelated avoidable internal strife (about which more later), our NEC had so lost the trust of sufficient Conference delegates that, when Rule Amendments were put before Conference in 2009 and 2011, they failed to command sufficient support - because many delegates understandably feared that the widely drafted Rule Amendment might as easily facilitate action against members of small socialist political parties as against the far right.



Thanks to the Chair of our Development and Organisation Committee who - in January - insisted that amendments to the proposed Rule Amendment suggested by Committee members should be accepted subject to legal advice, today's NEC was able to agree a tightly worded amendment to Rule I which deserves to command the assent of our Conference.



This will make it easier for UNISON to expel the far right, without causing concern to the left. I would be more than happy to speak to any UNISON branch who may still have reservations about this necessary and important Rule Amendment.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with Swindon

One of the topics discussed at today's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) was the disgraceful threat from Swindon Council to dismiss the UNISON Branch officials and remove all facility time from UNISON - http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7603.

UNISON is asking members and supporters to write to the council chief executive Gavin Jones at Swindon Borough Council, Civic Offices, Euclid Street, Swindon SN1 2JH (email gjones@swindon.gov.uk) or council leader Roderick Bluh at the same address or (email rbluh@swindon.gov.uk) expressing your opposition to these proposals and your support for UNISON in Swindon and to send a message of support to the UNISON branch (email unisonswindon@swindon.gov.uk).

For those who can get to Swindon tomorrow evening (23 February) there will be a lobby of the Council meeting 6pm, Civic Offices, Euclid Street, Swindon SN1 2JH.

What emerged from discussion at the NEC was that the attack in Swindon is far from being an isolated aberration. Other NEC members reported similar problems.

This gathering offensive against those of us elected by our fellow trade unionists to carry out such a volume of trade union duties that it is reasonable for us to be given full or part-time release from other work is an integral part of the Coalition Government's assault upon public services and employment rights. This requires a legal, political and industrial response.

Legally, of course, trade union facility time is the child of the statutory reuirement placed on employers to grant reasonable paid time off for union officials to carry out trade union duties - though, historically, these legal rights simply reflected "facts on the ground" established through prior collective bargaining.

Whilst there may be no legal right to any particular amount of time off, the right to reasonable time off does mean that, for many full-time reps, were we to be "sent back to work" we would simply spend an hour each Monday morning requesting paid time off for the duties which we would be carrying out for the rest of the week. Each and any unreasonable refusal of those requests would provide good grounds for a tribunal application. Saner employers recognise the folly of such an approach.

Another legal angle exists in the case of local authorities however, since all their decisions are subject to the "Wednesbury" test of reasonableness (which is unlikely to be satisfied, for example, in a case in which a gung ho Tory Leader makes policy on the hoof - http://roystonsmith.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=476&Itemid=). Additionally, all public sector employers must have regard to their general equality duty in drawing up plans to reduce trade union facility time, providing another avenue for legal challenge against such attacks.

The law alone is never enough of course. That's why we also need a political response. Part of our response must be to ensure we get the message across, to our members, employers and MPs, that those released from other work to carry out trade union duties are doing valuable work. We can expect more positive stories such as this one in last Friday's Guardian - http://m.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/17/working-life-union-official-unison?cat=money&type=article. This positive message has to be disseminated far and wide. This won't be easy as the other side has most of the print media sewn up - but (unlike the last time we faced such a concerted offensive from the Tories) we do have t'intaweb to use in our defence.

We also need to lobby politicians of all parties to spread understanding of the need for, and social value of, the trade union presence in the workplace. Since many Labour authorities also seek to attack trade union time off from time to time, there's a job here for UNISON Labour Link (and all other affiliated unions).

Ultimately though, when we are under attack, we need to be prepared to take industrial action to defend our interests (as part of a wider campaign which also includes legal and political action). To do this we need to remember, and to remind our members that - just as trade union facility time is only a means to an end, not an end in itself - so the attack on trade union facility time is also a means to another end (in this case our opponents seek to weaken our union in order to weaken our ability to resist assaults upon public services, pay, pensions, conditions and workers' rights). A valid point made at today's NEC meeting was that sometimes such attacks are also attempts at vengeance where the union has successfully resisted some attack from the employer (with the obvious intention of weakening the union now in order to settle accounts with the workforce as a wholein the near future).

Therefore, in mobilising our members on this issue we need clearly to link the attack on our trade union in each particular case with whichever other dispute accompanies it (or has preceded it)(or is likely to follow it).

This will be a critical issue for UNISON for the duration of this Parliament (and - unless the Opposition Front Bench rediscover left wing politics - perhaps far longer).

Today's battle in this long war is being fought in Swindon.

Good luck comrades!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support grows in UNISON for solidarity with the people of Greece

One interesting(*) feature of the Statement of Solidarity with the people of Greece (which you can sign online - http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2012/02/sign-the-appeal-for-solidarity-with-the-people-of-greece/?gf_search=unison) is that you can search the online list of signatories to determine which trade union they have declared their membership of.



This shows that (as I write) 77 UNISON members have signed up. This is more than any other union, including those whose General Secretaries are among the initial signatories. (UCU come in second at 67, with UNITE on 43 and the NUT on 35. No other union currently has more than a dozen declared members among the 2,126 signatories who have signed up online in the few days since the statement was launched.)



International solidarity with those resisting austerity must be one of our priorities in the coming year, so as well as signing up to the statement, UNISON members need to consider how to get this subject prioritised for debate at our Conference in June.



(*) regular readers, Sid and Doris Blogger, will appreciate that this use of the word "interesting" means "interesting to a slightly obsessive blogger who has a long daily commute".



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Work your proper hours every day!

The intention of Friday's "work your proper hours day" (http://www.worksmart.org.uk/workyourproperhoursday/) is laudable.

It is to highlight just how much of the working year is worked as unpaid overtime by the millions of workers routinely working beyond their additional hours for no extra pay.

Unfortunately, the very title of the day suggests that the aspiration of our movement is that there should only be one day a year when our members don't put in unpaid overtime! (I realise that isn't the intention of course).

In the mid nineteenth century the nascent trade union movement fought a lengthy struggle to limit working time. It was the success of this struggle which drove employers to seek increased profits not from simply lengthening working time, but by revolutionising production processes to increase the productivity of each working hour.

The struggle to work less was therefore the foundation for the massive increases in labour productivity which have underpinned rising living standards over recent generations.

It's no accident that in the past generation, in which the increase in the living standards of working people has been first stalled and then reversed, we have seen a tendency for working hours to increase, often without pay.

When I started work in local government in the 1980s, to have worked more than your contracted hours would have singled you out as, at best, an oddball and, at worst, someone seeking to curry favour with management.

As we approach once more three million on the dole, we need to recreate the consciousness that those who work overtime are stealing work from our unemployed brothers and sisters (those who work it without pay are doing so for nothing).

If you want to do more than your 35 (or 36 or 37) hours - volunteer to do some recruitment work for the union. Our message to our members should be "work your proper hours every day" - and perhaps we should demand that employers refuse to permit unpaid overtime and (if they won't) ballot trade unionists in every industry for an indefinite overtime ban?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Equality is not a spectator sport

In the generation since we were denounced as the "loony left" for opposing discrimination at work there has been some genuine progress.



The public sector equality duty (which even this Government won't touch) seeks to enshrine in statute a proactive approach to challenging the consequences of oppression.



The duty will, increasingly, generate data with which we can illustrate, in order to understand and then to change, the discriminatory outcomes which are produced by racism, sexism and other oppressions.



It is important that trade unionists - and Labour politicians - go beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of belief in equality. Otherwise equality impact assessments will simply illustrate discrimination for our edification.



Trade unions also need to support self-organisation by those of our members with direct experience of oppression - and we clearly need to win this argument anew with each generation of activists.



UNISON's current review of self-organisation (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2011/05/building-future-of-equality-in.html?m=1) about which June's National Delegate Conference will receive an interim report must become the occasion to provide answers to those such as the white activist who asked recently why she should be excluded from black members meetings.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A charter for bullies

The Government have published the Draft Statutory Instrument which will, for those employed on or after 6 April, increase the qualifying period of continuous employment required to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111519974).

This means that, providing they are not discriminating against a worker on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, or dismissing for one of the special reasons to which the qualifying period does not apply, employers will have carte blanche to dismiss us at any point in our first two years of employment.

Employers' organisations say that this change will make them more likely to employ new staff - but the evidence for this isn't there. The reduction in the qualifying period in 1999 didn't increase unemployment and this change won't reduce it.

This change is about power in the workplace - and shifting the balance of power away from workers and towards bosses. Back in the mid 90s UNISON took a tribunal case which exposed, in one Department of one London Borough, a deliberate practice of employing temps for 23 months only to avoid their obtaining the statutory right to complain of unfair dismissal.

In that case we were able to show, on the facts, that the practice was unlawful indirect race discrimination - but in general such disgraceful employment practices were perfectly lawful under the last Tory Government and soon shall be again under this one.

If only Labour had abolished the qualifying period all together (in line with TUC policy) the Government might now be facing some greater resistance to the reintroduction of the principle that new starters deserve fewer rights.

As it is, the thousands of workers who face joining the millions on the dole over the coming months will - when and if they find work again - face working twice as long before they obtain even the feeble right to minimal compensation offered by an employment tribunal.

Taking this retrograde step together with the introduction of fees for bringing tribunal claims (welcomed by the British Chambers of Commerce - spokespeople for the provisional wing of the petit bourgeoise - http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/zones/policy/press-releases_1/fees-for-accessing-employment-tribunal-service-will-boost-business-confidence-says-bcc.html) Government policy is clearly to establish a charter for employers to act like bullies in the workplace.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Kill the bill!

If you haven't yet signed the e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Health and Social Care Bill (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670) do so now and you might be that magic 100,000th signature!



What better object for our love on Valentine's Day than our National Health Service?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with the people of Greece

As savage as the spending cuts we face may be, Greece shows just how bleak austerity can get (and that democracy itself is not indispensable to those who worship the new pantheon of credit rating agencies).



It is therefore timely to declare solidarity with our Greek brothers and sisters (http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/13/solidarity-campaign-people-greece?cat=world&type=article) - you can add your name to the statement of solidarity courtesy of the Coalition of Resistance (http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2012/02/sign-the-appeal-for-solidarity-with-the-people-of-greece/).



It is good to see a number of leading trade unionists putting their names to this statement. If we are to defend the interests of trade union members, in Europe and across the world, we need - as a movement - to break free from the mindset that says that deficits must be reduced and budgets balanced.



The price of playing by the rules of our existing system includes the enforced idleness and impoverishment of millions, the squandering of productive potential that could be used for the good of society, and the dismantling of the social gains of generations. The Greek people are currently paying the highest price (denominated in Euros) - but working people throughout Europe and beyond are paying heavily also.



We need a movement capable of repeating both 26 March and 30 November 2011, of broadening and deepening both protest and industrial action, and of thinking (and acting) both globally and locally.



We are a long way from having what we need - but the signatories of the appeal for solidarity with the people of Greece are, at least, facing in the right direction.



As regular readers of this blog, Sid and Doris Internationalist, will be aware, the deadline for motions to UNISON Conference is now just days away.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What is happening to the fight against cuts?

I spoke this evening to a Council Cabinet meeting which, when I had addressed it last year, had sat in the presence of a large, loud and angry lobby of workers and community activists as it agreed to make deep and painful cuts. This year, similarly horrendous decisions were made in the all but silent presence of very few observers.

This difference has arisen not for want of effort of local trade union and community activists. Our local anti-cuts campaigners (where I work in Lambeth _ http://lambethsaveourservices.org/) are a model to be emulated elsewhere.

There is obviously a danger of fatalism in each year after a first year in which a vicious right-wing Government has imposed its cuts, but we have to think also about what we - as socialists - need to do to avert this.

One important problem has been the failure of attempts to coordinate anti-cuts campaigns nationally.

So we have the Coalition of Resistance (http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/) - a good idea which has yet to realise it's potential, anti-cuts activity from the National Shop Stewards Network (http://www.shopstewards.net/) - a good idea which lost its way, and Unite the Resistance (http://uniteresist.org/) - an idea which may yet turn out to have been good. All the while, the Peoples' Charter (http://www.thepeoplescharter.org/) continues to be available as an organising tool to anyone who cares to pick it up.

The left is left offering this range of options to activists as a result of our marginalisation after decades of decline. The (somewhat sorry) lesson of the pensions dispute thus far is that, in the continuing absence of a vibrant and effective rank and file movement, trade unionists can be won to support strike action when - and only when - they are called upon to do so officially.

This means that the struggle to assert democratic authority over the leadership of the trade union movement is of vital importance. The same principle, it seems to me, applies to the Labour Party, whose local leaders are not irrelevant to the level of popular support for ant--cuts mobilisations.

Trade unionists need to demand of Labour politicians that, rather than prioritise the administration of expenditure reductions required by the Tory Government, they lead local opposition to those reductions.

Our most important task in relation to Labour Councils is not so much to condemn the universal capitulation to the Government which (given its universality) is hard for any individual Labour Group to reverse - what we need to demand of all Labour politicians, in office or opposition, is that they join our fight against the Tory cuts.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Not safe in their hands

UNISON's opinion poll, showing deep public mistrust of the Tory Government's stewardship of the NHS (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2603) secured some good coverage, increasing pressure on the Government.



That pressure needs to increase - which is why all UNISON members should find the time to email your MP (http://action.unison.org.uk/page/speakout/nhsriskregister) and - those who can get to London midweek - should be mobilising for the rally in defence of the NHS on 7 March (6pm at Central Hall, Westminster - http://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial/tuc-20597-f0.cfm).



The NHS isn't safe in their hands - but we can save it from them if we fight hard enough.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

M28 - what should UNISON do?

The breadth of potential pensions strike action on 28 March, whilst as yet unlikely to approach that we saw on 30 November last year, is growing, with the possible inclusion of UNITE’s health sector and the Fire Brigades Union (FBU).

UNISON’s leadership have – rightly – made clear that our ballot results are still “live” and that we could call further action if we fail to make adequate progress in negotiations. Now would be a good time for reports back from negotiators to assess whether we should be joining the rising tide of support for further action on 28 March.

No one would be wise to underestimate just how difficult it would be to get our members out for further action - yet, if we cannot, through negotiations, secure a settlement which is genuinely a victory that must surely be what we should consider.

After N30? F20 and M28!

The pensions dispute is a long way from over. UNITE have called for a demonstration outside the High Court in the Strand on 20 February, when the trade union appeal against the change to indexing of pensions in payment will be heard.

The University and Colleges Union (UCU) have agreed to join possible strike action on 28 March, upon which the largest civil service union PCS and the largest teachers union, the NUT are consulting their members.

UNISON branches should support the demonstration on 20 February – not least because, given the policy accepted by our Service Group Executives (SGEs) our only hope of reversing the change to uprating of our pensions is through this legal action.

We also need to consider how best we can support the action on 28 March, given the constraints of the anti-union laws. Branches in dispute with employers should consider organising action on that date. Others should seek agreements from employers that UNISON members who respect picket lines on 28 March will face no action other than loss of pay.

Make your MP think about the risk of destroying our NHS

This message has been sent round from UNISON's Million Voices Campaign;

On 22 February there is an important debate in the House of Commons on the future of the NHS.

The government has so far refused to release the so-called "risk register" behind its controversial Health Bill, despite the independent Information Commissioner telling them to do so.

Speculation suggests that the register contains damning information about the risks of the government's NHS overhaul, particularly around the cost of its plans and the ability of GPs to take on massive new responsibilities.

It takes just two minutes to make a difference

The debate on 22 February is a chance for MPs to vote for the government to release the risk register now, so that the public will have a better idea of what is in store for the NHS and our politicians will be better informed when considering the Health Bill in Parliament.

Ask your MP to support the motion that the risk register should be published.

UNISON CALLS ON ERIC PICKLES TO INVESTIGATE BARNET COUNCIL

Hot off the press from UNISON in London...

UNISON, the UK’s largest union, is calling on the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, to launch an immediate inquiry into the use of consultants at Barnet Council after public sector tax avoidance hit the headlines in the case of Ed Lester the Head of the Student Loans Company.

The union believes that the proper employment and procurement practices have not been followed exposing the Council to significant reputational and financial risks.

Eric Pickles has already had to step in and reprimand the council, after local residents and Barnet bloggers exposed the METPRO Audit scandal when METPRO a private security firm were awarded a contract at a cost of over a million pounds - without a tendering exercise, written contact or any proper invoicing - to ‘keep an eye’ on local bloggers.

Laura Butterfield, Regional Organiser at UNISON, said:

“We are really concerned that proper procedures have not been followed at Barnet Council. Over the last two years Barnet Council has employed a long list of consultants including the Deputy Chief Executive and Assistant Director of HR. Only an immediate inquiry can clarify the correct processes were followed. Given Danny Alexander’s intervention in the Ed Lester case last week how can we ensure that future cases are avoided unless all public sector employees are employed through the correct processes?”

UNISON’s key concerns

· The Council has failed to comply with its Contract Procurement Regulations (CPR) and Financial Regulations by employing consultants without any procurement/selection process being followed.– which exposes it to significant reputational and financial risks .

· The Council does not have accurate and complete centrally held contracts register and effective monitoring arrangements so are unable to confirm if this is an isolated incident.

· The Council does not have a complete, centrally held register of contractors showing who is employed, on what basis and at what cost.

We recommend that all spend over the stated threshold in the CPR be reviewed and matched to a central contracts register (in development) in a timely basis. This register needs to be drawn up in full and maintained.

Back in February 2011 the local UNISON branch submitted a report to all 63 Barnet Councillors on 10 February where they made the following recommendation

Recommendation
The Council undertakes as a matter of urgency a review of all payments to staff not employed directly by the Council.

Furthermore we recommend that the Council refer to the HMRC Guidelines in particular the advice to be found here that explains that “It's your responsibility to correctly determine the employment status of your workers - that is, whether they're employed by you or self-employed. This depends on the terms and conditions of your working relationship with each worker.

It's important to get your workers' employment status right because it affects the way tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) are calculated for them. And it determines whether or not you have to operate PAYE (Pay As You Earn) on their earnings.”

Read full details here
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/employees/start-leave/status.htm <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/employees/start-leave/status.htm>

For comment or more information please contact Laura Butterfield – 07718 520 850 / l.butterfield@unison.co.uk

Congratulations to those facing the challenge

Those wishing to see a picture of the incumbent Regional Council Officers, successfully re-elected at yesterday's Regional Council AGM can do so courtesy of an unnamed contributor to the UNISON Anonymous blog - http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2012/02/london-unison-regional-council-agm.html.



Congratulations are due to Gloria, Conroy and their team, who will need all our support in facing UNISON's most challenging year yet. For my part I shall do all I can to disprove my prediction that the re-election of the incumbents would mean we had no further quorate meetings of the Regional Council in 2012.



The majority of delegates who supported Lambeth's attempt to reduce the quorum - and the minority who (comprising more than a blocking third) successfully opposed us - need to work together to ensure a quorum at our next meeting. Our 18 year old trade union came of age on 30 November last year when we glimpsed, for a fleeting moment, the Union we hoped to create in 1993.



I hope we can be that Union again - and one small contribution to that goal will be a functioning Regional Council in London.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Fighting privatisation - in Barnet and beyond

Our Coalition Government is on a mission not simply to make savage cuts but also to privatise as much of the provision of public services as will remain.



In this way, an economic crisis originating in the financial heart of the private sector is becoming an opportunity for the triumph of the very values that caused the crisis.



If we cannot halt this then we shall see more and more schools and hospitals being run to make a profit rather than to provide a service. In local government the Tory dream of a commissioning Council will be the nightmare from which our communities will be unable to wake.



This is why today's strike action in Barnet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16959560) is so important - because it shows that trade union members can, and will, fight to protect our public services. We need many more branches to follow suit if we are to mobilise the strength of our movement to resist the destruction of our public services.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Barnet strikers show the way

Thursday sees the fourth day of strike action against the OneBarnet privatisation plans by members of Barnet UNISON (http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/?q=node/768).



Just as Barnet's Thatcherite politicians have been outriders and pathbreakers for the Tory Right, so Barnet UNISON have pioneered campaign tactics to oppose the break up and destruction of public services.



The tactic of strikers doing unpaid work for a local charity - whilst demanding that the employer makes a charitable donation equivalent to the money they save by not paying the salaries of those on strike - is an important gesture in the direction of building social movement trade unionism.



For more information, visit the branch website: www.barnetunison.me.uk or email a message of support to contactus@barnetunison.org.uk.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

After N30 - the debate with the "rejectionists"

Red Pepper hosts an interesting exchange of views between Gregor Gall, a prominent and thoughtful union oriented academic, and Heather Wakefield, our equally prominent and thoughtful Head of Local Government, concerning the outcome of "N30" (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/n30-and-after-was-that-it/). It's well worth reading in full.

There is a debate to be had and it has to get beyond discordant cries of betrayal on the one hand and disloyalty on the other.

Gregor summarises, perhaps approvingly, what he sees as the views of the PCS General Secretary;

"Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, has lambasted what he sees as 'fatalism' on the part of many other unions in this fight. By this, he means leaders of the GMB and Unison in particular do not seem to think they can win because they have become so psychologically inured to years of defeat since the 1980s."

However, Gregor also points to the lack of clear evidence of an appetite for sustained industrial action - and to the difficulties of sustaining important public support for such action given the weakness of "social movement" organising by UK trade unions (an interesting observation to which I hope to return).

The essential purpose of his citing the trenchant views of Mark Serwotka is to highlight precisely the division of opinion which they express, as evidence of a further collective weakness of our trade unions.

Therefore, it may be as much to Mark Serwotka as to Gregor Gall that Heather Wakefield addresses this part of her riposte;

"Those who argue that unions wanting to negotiate – the majority – have 'sold out' and undermined trade union solidarity need to get to grips with the complexities of public sector pensions, serious areas of weakness in membership density and organisation, sectoral bargaining arrangements in the public sector. Only when they have done that should they decide whether there is a route to getting everything we want through industrial action."

I will come to each of the three things with which Heather says we need to "get to grips" but first it is worth commenting on that last sentence. Which experienced trade unionist, at the start (or the middle, or the endgame) of any industrial dispute seriously asks the question "is there a route to getting everything we want through industrial action?"

This question, implied by Heather's critique of the "rejectionist" position in the current pensions dispute has two flaws. The first is the implication that the "rejectionists" believe that our trade unions are "one trick ponies" and are considering industrial action as a stand-alone tactic. This turns reality on its head. It is those who have followed UNISON's line of suspending industrial action for negotiations on a basis available before we went on strike who are deliberately restricting our tactical options - not those who are continuing to negotiate without having signed up to anything.

The second flaw is more important. Heather implies that, in order to consider - at this point - a strategy which included further industrial action, we would need to know that it could provide " a route to getting everything we want." This is an entirely false basis for comparing the different strategies of the "rejectionist" unions and those following UNISON's line.

It wasn't the author of the riposte to Gregor Gall who said that this dispute had always been about "damage limitation" - but that is not the view of only one individual at UNISON HQ. Those who are currently negotiating around the health and local government pension schemes are, I am sure, doing a good job. However, neither they nor the lay Service Group Executives (SGEs) with whose authority they act can believe for a moment that they are on a "route to getting everything we want."

The correct question is not "if we take further industrial action will we get everything?" It is "if we take further industrial action will we do better than if we do not?"

This is a question of tactics, to which the three factors with which Heather says we should get to grips are relevant. The "complexities of public sector pensions" certainly do mean that the eventual settlement of disputes would lead to specific scheme by scheme settlements from scheme negotiations. However, this "complexity" cannot be invoked to justify the decision to abandon a unified approach to action at any particular point in time.

Similarly our "areas of weakness" existed before, as well as after, N30 and cannot therefore, of themselves, provide a basis upon which to take a particular tactical decision - such as whether or not it has been right to abandon further unified action after just one day. Indeed, the relationship between our weaknesses and industrial action is more complex than at first appears. Given the impact of the pensions campaign on recruitment, it is at least arguable that a more forthright approach to continuing the campaign would help us to address some of these weaknesses.

Thirdly "sectoral bargaining arrangements" must most certainly be taken into account - and are an all but inevitable feature of any final settlement. Again, however, these arrangements were around before as well as after N30. Indeed, prior to our General Secretary's TUC speech (in which he did all but "name the day") it was a common refrain within UNISON that unity could only be built "sector by sector". However, one lesson of the N30 strike, and of the campaign leading up to it, is that cross-sectoral industrial action can improve the bargaining position of trade unions across sectors.

Therefore, I conclude that it is perfectly possible, having got to grips with the complexities of public sector pensions, the reality of areas of weakness, and the necessity for sectoral bargaining, still to conclude that it has been a grave tactical blunder to draw back prematurely from unified industrial action.

This is not because such action, taken alone, promises outright victory, but because the proven efficacy of the tactic of unified action warrants consideration of its further application as part of our overall strategy.

It is in any event good to see considered debate - and I hope that UNISON branches in local government will requisition the Special Service Group Conference where this debate should properly take place.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange