UNISON support for the election of officials?

Respect to the Dudley General branch of UNISON, who have got Motion 111 (Election of Paid Officers) on to the agenda for UNISON's 20th National Delegate Conference.

This promises a return to a debate last visited sixteen years ago, in UNISON's infancy, about whether senior paid officials should be elected or appointed.

In 1995 Conference had voted down a call for the election of the position of Deputy General Secretary, which was mischeviously, but effectively, caricatured as an attack upon the then incumbent (now, of course, our General Secretary).

In 1996, in an unexpected card vote, Conference had come within an inch of supporting the principle of the election of Regional Secretaries, but when the subject was revisited in 1997, following preparation on all sides, the proposal was more decisively rejected in spite of an excellent "right of reply" from your not-at-all-humble blogger.

Thereafter other issues captured our attention, including the epic battles over UNISON's disciplinary rules which were the shadow boxing in this dimension of the private battles over the late 90s witch hunt. The question of the election of officials slipped somewhat down the agenda after the defeat in 1997.

In recent years every attempt to approach this question on the Conference agenda has been ruled out of order, so it is greatly to Dudley's credit that they have persevered and now enable us to consider the question afresh.

The issue of democracy in our movement is almost as old as our movement itself. The "iron law of oligarchy" holds that, as a workers movement appoints skilled administrators to coordinate its work, so it also creates a caste of officials, seperate from the workers, with their own distinct interests, and needing to be held to account (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy).

There have long been two schools of thought about how to achieve this accountability, whether by strong lay Committees controlling paid officials or by direct election.

From my personal observation of a decade on UNISON's ruling body, I have to conclude that, at least for us, and at least for now, the former approach is ineffective and the latter commends itself. I support Motion 111 and shall seek to persuade my NEC comrades to do likewise (though, I have to admit, without holding my breath).

Other TUC affiliates go further than electing only their General Secretary (which is, of course, required by law) and - in the cases of both the FBU and the NUT - elections of Deputy General Secretaries from the left have, in recent years, seen those successful candidates go on to become General Secretary.

Elections are good enough for lay activists and there can be no reason, in principle, why they should not be good enough for leading officials. Indeed, when you think about it, every argument which can be marshalled against the election of union officials could be (and often was) used to argue against representative democracy based on a universal franchise.

If, as a citizen, I have a democratic voice to choose legislators, why, as a worker, ought I not to have such a voice to choose negotiators?

Some rumour-mongers are suggesting that the UNISON Centre has been deliberately keeping the position of Deputy General Secretary (DGS) (which is a Rule Book requirement yet has been vacant for eight months - http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/sonnet-bows-out.html?m=1) vacant so that the option of electing a DGS could be considered.

Others say that any such suggestion is the invention of irresponsible bloggers.

I wouldn't want to comment...

(Except to say that electing a Deputy General Secretary would be a very good thing for UNISON).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Councillors Against the Cuts? Don't Panic! Prioritise Motion 42!

Those of us approaching a certain age, and distancing ourselves with the passage of time from a teenage love of radio science fiction comedy, have always known that the answer to "Life, the Universe and Everything" was "42" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/).



It now turns out that the Lambeth branch motion about "Councillors Against the Cuts" which has been admitted to the agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference - and about which I blogged a little while ago - is Motion 42. (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/councillors-against-cuts-priority-for.html?m=1 - follow this link for the text of the motion).



In the light of this information, I think only a Vogon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/vogon.shtml) would not want to see Motion 42 debated at UNISON National Delegate Conference.



For those readers of a more serious disposition (regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger) I would add that Motion 42, in calling for a debate about how councils and councillors should respond to Coalition cuts, addresses a question of vital importance to our members.



However you can influence the Conference prioritisation process - please prioritise Motion 42!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

On Saturday - support the Barnet Spring!

This Saturday there is an opportunity for people around London - and beyond - to support the long running struggle of the citizens and workers of Barnet against privatisation (http://barnetalliance.org/barnet-spring/).



All those who can should gather at Finchley Central tube station at 11am on Saturday 23 March to show support for the people of Barnet - and opposition to the Council's plans for massive privatisation on an unprecedented scale.



The campaign initiated by Barnet UNISON has spread into the wider community, with political consequences for the Tory Party which have included the decline (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/the_barnet_spring_prompts_brian_coleman_s_political_fall_from_grace_1_1384148) and fall (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_councillor_brian_coleman_kicked_off_council_committees_over_assault_charge_1_1685117) of Brian Coleman.



For Barnet's Tories to lose a leading Councillor (and former Mayor) may of course be considered a misfortune - to then lose a Chief Executive last October (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/05/barnet-easycouncil-chief-quits) looked like carelessness.



But they're pressing ahead with mass outsourcing of services to swell the coffers of Capita at the expense of local people - even in the face of a legal challenge to the adequacy of consultation (http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/19/barnet-council-high-court-budget-cuts).



Because, of course, the Tories couldn't care less about many vital local services and those who depend upon them.



The long war which has been fought by the workforce and community in Barnet to resist the wholesale destruction of local government as a public service is an example to every local community facing such threats - that's why all our communities must be represented in Barnet on Saturday.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support the Budget Day Strike!

Solidarity to members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) taking strike action today (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/national-campaigns/action-now/index.cfm).



PCS are rightly protesting at cuts to pay, pensions and working conditions - and have sensibly concluded that well timed strike action (on budget day!) must be part of such a campaign.



The same is true in UNISON.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Whipped to abstain???

Today Labour MPs were whipped to abstain on legislation being rushed through Parliament to let the Government off the hook of repaying those whose benefits have been unlawfully docked because they wouldn't participate in the pointless, pernicious workfare scheme (http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2296).

Whipped to abstain???

It sounds like the latest literary offering from the author of some dubious soft porn (fifty shades of Progress?), but apart from that, really, what does it mean?

Was it so vitally important that "Her Majesty's Opposition" failed to oppose (whilst of course not supporting) this disgraceful Government action that our MPs had to be instructed to sit on their hands?

Perhaps this was the perfect expression of the bankrupt politics of the Blairite "Third Way" (to celebrate the tenth anniversary of its defining achievement?) - we shall neither join the attack on the poor, nor shall we defend them (except that if we won't defend those who are vulnerable then of course we do line up with those attacking them).

I really do understand why this pathetic display of cowardice and stupidity from Mr Ed and his shadow cabinet of fools could drive good people to consider the invitation from Ken Loach to contemplate forming a new left political party (http://leftunity.org/appeal/).

There were, however, 40 Labour rebels who voted as any Labour MP should have (http://labourlist.org/2013/03/labours-40-welfare-sanctions-rebels/).

That's far and away the largest group of opponents of this disgraceful legislation (just as Labour MPs were the largest group of opponents of the Iraq war ten years ago).

If we are going to build an opposition to this Government of millionaires which has more than a toehold in Parliament (as we must) then we shall find our allies on the Labour benches.

Those who embark upon yet another episode in the never-ending soap opera of building an electoral alternative to the left of Labour don't need to be "whipped to abstain" from effective politics because they abstain voluntarily.

That said, socialists in the Labour Party must now foment a rebellion against the pathetic, idiotic and reactionary decision openly to capitulate to the Tories as was done today.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Take action now against NHS privatisation

This is a brief and simple post.



Click on this link now to spend a few minutes lobbying your MP to resist the privatisation of our National Health Service - http://action.goingtowork.org.uk/page/speakout/nhs-privatisation-help-call-for-real-debate-on-new-nhs-plans.



That is all.



(If you're reading this blog and don't get that you're in the wrong place!)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support Cleaners at SOAS

I have been passed the following urgent appeal from Sandy Nicoll, Secretary of the UNISON Branch at the School of Oriental and African Studies;



"SOAS Justice for Cleaners Lobby of SOAS Governing Body Outsourced Contracts Working Group

Wednesday 20 March 2013, 1pm, Main SOAS Building



The decision on whether our members working for the cleaning contractors will be brought back in house, a move supported by over 98% of the 1,300 staff and students who took part in the SOAS Community Consultative Referendum held last December, will be taken in the next few months.



The Working Group set up by Governing Body to look into this issue will be meeting on Wednesday 20 March and a very important lobby of this meeting has been called by the SOAS Justice for Cleaners Campaign supported by the SOAS UNISON branch.



We are asking you if you could:



1. Attend the lobby at 1pm and email your branches to encourage other members to attend;



2. Write to your local UCU branches asking for them to do the same;



3. Write or email your support for the Campaign to Donald Beaton, SOAS Registrar and Secretary who is coordinating the Working Group (d.beaton@soas.ac.uk).



We are hoping that if we can show the strength of feeling that exists over this issue then the School will have to take note and end the discrimination these workers face. We have fought long and hard to ensure that outsourced workers at SOAS are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We will also be hosting a speaker from the Sussex occupation the same evening (details to follow). We may be heading in that direction if the School doesn't begin to move!"



I can't attend tomorrow's lobby but have sent an email as requested - please do the same!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Spirit of 1941?

I really enjoyed seeing Ken Loach's new film, "the Spirit of 45" - it is a great tribute to the achievements of the Attlee Labour Government (which were achievements of our class).



However, in the light of Ken Loach's call for a new political party (http://leftunity.org/appeal/) it is perhaps interesting to note that, missing fron Ken's history of the period is any reference to the "Common Wealth" Party (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Pcommonwealth.htm) - founded in 1941 in opposition to Labour's wartime pact with the Tories. How did they do in 1945 and thereafter?



Indeed, Ken is pretty quiet about all the other various attempts to build an alternative to the Labour Party, from the departure of the Social Democratic Federation in the early years of the twentieth century, past the tragic split by the Independent Labour Party in the early 1930s, through to the Socialist Alliance in this century.



Sorry to be predictable, but I think our task is to try to reclaim the Labour Party rather than (or at least before) trying to replace it.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Councillors Against the Cuts - a priority for UNISON Conference

I'll blog a report of tomorrow's Councillors Against the Cutsmeeting in Birmingham later in the weekend.

Today's news is that the following motion, from the Lambeth Branch (and perhaps others?) has been approved by the Standing Orders Committee for admission to the Preliminary Agenda for UNISON's National Delegate Conference.

The motion is cautiously worded (following an experience of having a straightforwardly "anti-cuts" motion calling for deficit budgets ruled out of order a few years ago). It is of course open to amendment if comrades feel that is needed (although it would be wise to have regard to the guidance which is available on drafting Conference motions and amendments!)

The first thing which needs to be done is that the motion needs to be prioritised for debate. This means that branches need to put it forward as a high priority to their Regions (each Region, as well as Service Groups, Self-Organised Groups and the NEC can express up to twelve priorities - I won't go on at length about the prioritisation process as you can search the archives of this blog if you want to explore its intricacy and wonder - this six year old post for example...)

Anyway, this is the text of the motion which UNISON members need to prioritise if they want to see it debated at Conference (unless someone else has got a better version on the agenda elsewhere?);

Councillors Against the Cuts

Conference restates our opposition, expressed at National Delegate Conference 2012, to to the sustained attack on public services resulting from the savage cuts to local government funding being inflicted over more than 5 years by the ideologically driven Tory led government.

Conference notes that these continuing attacks have prompted debate within local government about how progressive local authorities should respond, and believes that UNISON should be involved in these debates.

Conference notes the emergence of the group "Councillors Against Cuts" and notes that this brings together Councillors who express the following views;

*           "We are a new network of local councillors formed to support the fight against cuts. We believe that instead of implementing the Coalition's cuts, councils and councillors should refuse to do so and help workers and communities organise in resistance.

*           We are pledged to vote against all cuts to services and jobs, increases in rents and charges, and increases in council tax.

*           We do not accept that cuts are "necessary": there is plenty of money in society, but it is in the wrong hands. Taxing the rich and business, taking the wealth of the banks and cutting Trident are all rich sources of funds.

*           We stand in solidarity with anti-cuts campaigns, with people defending their local services and with the broader community, tenants and residents, our children, disabled people, pensioners etc - in defence of the living standards and rights of the most vulnerable people in society as the Coalition government attacks them."

Conference believes that the emergence of Councillors Against the Cuts is a welcome addition to the debate which needs to take place in the labour and trade union movement about how to respond to the Coalition's cuts.

Conference therefore

1. Calls upon the National Executive Council to initiate a debate in the labour and trade union movement about how Councils and Councillors should respond to the continuing savage spending cuts imposed by Central Government, consistent with UNISON Rules and agreed policy, and;

2. Requests that UNISON Labour Link establishes a dialogue with Councillors Against the Cuts in order to determine the scope for joint campaigning activity within UNISON Rules and agreed policy.

Eric's unjustified attack on our unions

Eric Pickles, having devastated local government funding, is now determined to disrupt employee relations in local government with (ill-founded) "advice" on how to cut back on trade union "facility time." (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/taxpayer-funding-of-trade-unions-delivering-sensible-savings-in-local-government)

Mad Eric summarises his "advice" in ten points. Let's look at each one;

1. Councils should save taxpayers' money by significantly scaling back the cost of trade union facility time.

Eric, you are the one driving the need for facility time with your constant cuts! The time taken to do trade union work depends upon the issues being created for the union by the employer.

2. There should be full transparency on the level of facility time given to trade unions.

"Facility time" is not "given" to trade unions Eric. Employers have a duty to give reasonable time off with pay for elected representatives to carry out their trade union duties. Transparency wouldn't be a problem for any trade union branch worth its salt, but you need to understand that neither you nor our employers "give" us time - you and they demand we spend time dealing with issues which you create (and for which they then have a legal duty to pay us).

3. Employees should not be spending all or the majority of their working hours on trade union duties.

Oh Eric. You should not spend all or the majority of your time being a reactionary caricature of yourself (and I'm sure you don't mean to). Sometimes you find you have no choice though. The law requires employers to give "reasonable" time off with pay to elected officials to carry out trade union duties - in some cases that leads to full (or part) time release. Sane employers deal with this sensibly. You need a quiet sit down.

4. Time off for trade union activities should be unpaid.

Why Eric? The statutory Code of Practice, whilst acknowledging (of course) that the legal position is that the right to time off for trade union activities is a right to time off without pay, nevertheless acknowledges that employers may wish to permit time off with pay for trade union activities (not least to ensure that workplace meetings are representative). Naughty Eric doesn't appear to have any advice for local authorities about the evident applicability of the public sector equality duty to their decisionmaking on this topic either. Could it be you don't care about equality Eric?

5. The amount of facility time should be reduced and should be limited to a set percentage of an organisation's pay bill.

Eric! Employee relations isn't like a diet! You can't set a calorie limit in advance! The amount of paid time off which an organisation will be required by law to provide to trade union representatives will vary with the issues giving rise to the need for the time off. Try to spend some time listening to what is happening around you.

6. Councils should adopt private sector levels of facility time.

Now you're being lazy Eric. There is no single homogenous "private sector" to have "levels of facility time" and - to be honest - we public sector employees are increasingly fed up with being told to emulate the greed-driven sector of the economy that got us in to the financial mess which your Government hasn't a clue how to get out of. Shape up Eric. You're not impressing anyone.

7. Restrictions should be placed on the use of office facilities for trade union representatives.

Clearly you're tired after making six brief suggestions Eric, since you now turn to the meaningless. The facilities to be given to elected officials in employment are invariably a matter for discussion - as much in the interests of the organisation as of staff. If you deny union reps a telephone how do you suppose they'll talk to management?

8. Political material, or material which incites industrial action, should not be produced or distributed on or using taxpayer-funded facilities.

By this point I think Eric had wandered off (for lunch?) and left someone just to tick boxes. Given that political material has to be funded out of a voluntary political fund and that few employers ever permitted the use of their resources to pursue a fight against injustice, we need an informed debate (which we're not getting from daft Eric).

9. Councils should charge for collecting union subscriptions, or end the practice completely.

Most Councils charge for subs deduction already. It's hardly an expensive service to provide! Eric's visceral hostility to trade unions is, by now, quite clear.

10. Councillors should declare payments and sponsorship from trade unions and ensure there is no conflict of interest.

Bless little Eric, he's lost it hasn't he? We don't (as trade unions) make payments to or sponsor individual Councillors.

He probably knows that (as I don't think he's as stupid as he appears to be).

Could it be that a Secretary of State is deliberately misusing his role in Government to behave in a blatantly partisan way?

Could it be that a Government Minister is playing politics with no regard for the consequences of his action?

Oh.

Yes.

I'm afraid it could.

Eric Pickles was a poor Council Leader but is a far worse Government Minister. The Bullingdon millionaires presumably only keep him around because they think he's "common".

His attack on our trade unions must be rejected and resisted.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON's message to Councillors on local government pay

I am copying this (below) to encourage us all to complement this national bulk email to Councillors with our own local messages.

To all councillors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

National Joint Council (NJC) Pay 2013 – 14

This email brings you up to date with negotiations on NJC pay and calls on you to urge the Local Government Employers (LGE) to make an improved offer to our members.

The Employers have responded to the Trade Union Side's pay claim for 2013-14 with the two options outlined below, both of which UNISON has rejected for the reasons given. We are writing to give you details of the offer and are calling on you as councillors to speak to your council leaders and chief executives and ask them to put pressure on the Local Government Association (LGA), Welsh LGA and Northern Ireland LGA to return to negotiations with an improved pay offer.

Since April 2010 the NJC workforce has been suffering the effects of a long and painful pay freeze and across-the-board job cuts. Some councils have lost over one third of all posts. UNISON believes that those who are keeping essential services going by covering for lost jobs, deserve a fair pay rise that recognises and rewards their loyalty in these difficult times.

A cut in pay of 18% in real terms

Since 2010 pay for the local government workforce has dropped, in real terms, by a staggering 18%. Our members have lost almost 1/5th of their earnings. In addition, many councils have cut unsocial hours and overtime payments, hours of work, car allowances and redundancy pay. Others have introduced unpaid annual leave and term-time only working and have cut pay and frozen annual increments. Many have also introduced car parking charges. Local government pay and terms and conditions continue to be the lowest in the whole of the public sector and continue to decline in relation to NHS staff and others. The lowest paid receive only £6.30 per hour – that's just 11p above the National Minimum Wage.

What have the Employers offered?

The Employers have offered our members a below-inflation, 1% increase in return for cuts to car allowances and replacement of the unilateral arbitration clause. In exchange they have offered an increase of 1 day on basic annual leave only, which will benefit very few employees, and an extension of continuous service provisions from 5 to 10 years. As you know, the direction of travel is sadly out of local government, not in, so this will be of little benefit. The Employers also want to draw up a list of further changes to conditions to be negotiated later, which our members view as a hostage to fortune. Local government workers already have the worst conditions in the public sector so it is an insult to seek further cuts to their terms and conditions.

In the event that this offer is not accepted, staff are then being faced with a "no strings" 'punishment' increase of 1% for those earning up to scale point 10 - £13,874 and an increase of just 0.6% for those earning £14,733 - scale point 11 or above.

Is there a mandate for this offer?

It is unclear where the Employers are getting their mandate for this offer from:

Several Regional councils have publicly supported a no-strings, 1% increase in line with Government public sector pay policy – an increase that falls well short of our claim, but which is the minimum any public sector worker should receive this year according to the Chancellor

At least 50 councils are prepared to pay, or have pledged to pay, the Living Wage. This amounts to an 18.25% increase on the lowest NJC pay rate. An increase above 1% without strings for all must therefore be affordable

Councils not covered by the NJC who have settled pay for 2013 are paying at least 1% – some up to 2%
Low pay and poor conditions are harming morale and causing debt

We would also ask you to consider the following:

Since 2010, over 260,000 jobs have been lost in local government through redundancies and deletion of vacant posts, leaving existing staff to cover over the cracks as demand for services increases

A recent survey of over 14,800 UNISON members showed that more than 80% feel that workload, pressure and stress has increased since 2010 and over 70% feel that workplace stress is harming their personal and working lives

53% of UNISON members in our survey are in debt and over 55% of them have debts of over £5000

Many part-time workers have lost Working Tax Credit due to the increase in the hours threshold

Frozen pay harms the local economy. Public spending plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth and job creation. Crucially, local government workers re-spend 52.5 pence in every pound they receive in wages in their local economy

A decent pay rise is affordable – and necessary

UNISON believes that a decent pay rise for local government workers to make up for lost earnings is affordable – and necessary:

With the number of jobs falling drastically, there has been a corresponding drop in the basic local government pay bill (excluding teachers). In 2011/12, it dropped by over 10% to £23.9 billion, when RPI inflation is taken into account - on top of a similar decrease in 2010/11

In addition to the reduction in pay bill, councils have also taken the decision to increase the amount they hold in reserves. Non-school reserves increased to over £16 billion in England alone by 31 March 2012. Over £4 billion of this was in unallocated reserves

Around £1 billion on the basic NJC pay bill in 2013-14 would provide our members with a pay rise which would start to make up for the dramatic drop in their earnings since 2010

To fill the staffing gaps left by drastic cuts, councils are also increasing the amounts being spent on agency workers. Millions of pounds that could be used to secure the jobs of our members working in-house and pay them a decent wage are being wasted on costly external consultants from multi-national accountancy firms, called in to make cuts and re-organise services

With a falling pay bill it is unclear why middle earners in local government - like nursery nurses, social workers, customer service staff and engineers - should be punished with a token 0.6% pay offer. A salary of £14,733 is still well below the government's own low pay threshold of £21,000. The local government workforce as a whole is very poorly paid – with 502,500 NJC employees – 31% of the workforce - earning less than £15,000 a year and over 1,000,000 earning less than £21,000

Mid-point earnings in 2012 for the economy as a whole were £26,500, compared to £24,312 for local government – that's 8.26% lower. There is no public sector pay premium in local government!!

UNISON knows that times are tough and that the government has singled councils out for the harshest austerity measures within the public sector. However, councils need their employees more than ever to keep services going and retain their allegiance for the tough times ahead. It is clear that they can afford a higher basic pay award this year and that the loyalty of our members is severely stretched by the one that has been made.

I would urge you to do everything in your power to convince the LGE and you Local Government Association to make an offer which really does recognise the sacrifices our members have made to keep local government afloat.

I would welcome a reply from you. You can write to me at UNISON, 130 Euston Rd, London NW1 2AY or e-mail at NJCPay2013@unison.co.uk.

Yours Sincerely,

Heather Wakefield

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A victory for UNISON members

In a hard fought victory for principle and common sense (and for UNISON members in Bromley), Glenn Kelly has been elected as Secretary of UNISON's Bromley local government branch.



Glenn has had to overturn unlawful disciplinary action taken against him by his own trade union (in a case so long running that I can link back to a debate on this blog, foreseeing trouble, five years ago - http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-promised-in-response-to-comments-from.html?m=1).



He now faces resuming elected office in a branch taken under the control of the Regional office three years ago on grounds which were, in the opinion of this writer, never adequately justified (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/03/unisons-suburban-sigurimi.html?m=1).



The demolition of democratic trade unionism has led to a situation in which Bromley Council are bidding to be the first London Borough to break away from national pay bargaining. In a repeat of lessons that UNISON should have learned more than a decade ago in Birmingham and Sheffield we can see that, where it is plainly politically motivated, "regional supervision" of our branches leaves a legacy of lasting damage to the strength of our trade union.



Now that the members of Bromley UNISON have been allowed to speak, they have spoken clearly.



It is most welcome that, at the UNISON Centre, there is no appetite for further internal strife. However, in the dark and impenetrable interior of Congress House there may still be Regional officials who do not know that this particular war is over.



I'll do my best to tell them.



But they don't always listen to me.



On the off chance that anyone at the UNISON Centre is reading, do you think you could have a word?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A victory against victimisation

It is entirely brilliant news that my friend and comrade Max Watson is returning to work at London Metropolitan University, alongside his colleagues, Steve and Jawad (http://stopthewitchhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/thank-you-from-max-jawad-and-steve/).



The campaign against these three utterly unjustified - and unjustifiable - suspensions over recent weeks has been exemplary. It provides a lesson in how to resist victimisation which will - I fear - be all too necessary over the next couple of years.



The rank and file mobilisation was matched and complemented by the firm official support of the trade unions at every level.



This has been a victory for all those who supported the "WLRI three", for Dave Prentis as much as for Jeremy Corbyn, and for all the hundreds who have given voice to our anger at injustice.



Most of all though, this is a victory for Steve, for Jawad and for Max (who must surely now be looking forward to Friday's UNISON Higher Education Conference!)



Well done comrades!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What should Labour Councils do?

For those interested in such matters, I've been having a bit of a disagreement with a fellow Labour Party member (and Lambeth Councillor) over on the Red Pepper website (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/debate-is-the-co-op-council-really-co-operating-with-cuts/) about whether the "co-operative council" is an adequate response to the cuts.



I think Lambeth's Labour Group deserve some credit for at least trying to think about what Labour Councils should be doing under this Government.



The superficially appealing "co-operative council" is, at least, a political response to Barnet's "Easy Council."



Just not the right one.



I'm inclined to go to the "Councillors Against the Cuts" meeting in Birmingham on Saturday (http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/2013/03/08/one-week/) in search of the correct response.



But if you're a regular reader of this blog (Sid? Doris?) then you could have told me that...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Would a pay rise cost jobs?

As we prepare for a campaign to persuade local government workers to fight for fair pay, we need to prepare to answer the arguments which will be put against us.



Supporters of the public sector pay freeze - and now of pay restraint (which means real terms pay cuts) sometimes use the argument put by Ed Balls to last year's TUC - that we must tolerate falling living standards to save jobs.



Prophets of doom within the unions sometimes echo this counsel of despair - saying that members fearful for their jobs won't fight for fair pay.



There's an obvious superficial plausibility to both of these flawed arguments, if you imagine local authorities as simply having a fixed pot of money, the size and distribution of which cannot be influenced by political pressure.



The evidence of official Government statistics tell a different story however - and one that should be shared with trade union members;



"Excluding the reclassification of jobs between the public and private sectors, the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 128,000 between September 2011 and September 2012." (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Public-and-private-sector-employment--first-published-on-12-December-2012-)



So the pay freeze didn't avert massive job losses - it accompanied them.



The obvious truth is that if the trade unions don't at least attempt to show our strength by mobilising our members then we won't achieve much on jobs or pay.



And if the trade unions don't fight back on a national scale we will fail to mobilise the political pressure which will be required, under this or any conceivable Government, to restore local government spending and repair the damage being done to jobs and services.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

It's never about one leader

I'm very sorry to hear of the death of Hugo Chavez (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13928049), in precisely the way I won't mourn the passing of Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth Windsor or (for that matter) Tony Blair or David Cameron.



I rarely touch on international issues on this blog because I prefer to concentrate on issues I know at least something about and/or can do at least something about.



But I can see, as anyone can, that Chavez stood as a representative of the poor, the oppressed and the working class in Venezuela. Socialists should share their sorrow at his passing.



He was a charismatic leader and plainly something of a populist and, were I Venezuelan, I imagine that my support for him would have been critical to the point that might have been worrying for me. As an old Bennite, I understand that we must always mistrust and criticise all leaders (Benn included!) - a lesson which many of my more leftwing comrades would do well to learn.



Nevertheless, Chavez stood in opposition to US imperialism (and if that led him to questionable alliances he never gave support to the most reactionary nations - such as Saudi Arabia - which are lauded by our leaders).



Sometimes there is no more a "third camp" than there was ever a "third way" and - in general - the popular opposition to US dominance which Chavez expressed and exemplified has been a positive and progressive political force.



And that's the point.



Chavez did not personify opposition to imperialism. He expressed it.



Chavez himself may not have agreed with Lao Tzu on leadership (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10627-to-lead-people-walk-beside-them-as-for-the) but the truth is that the "Bolivarian revolution" was and is the property of the people and not of one President.



I'm sorry that Chavez is dead, not because I mourn him as an individual but because I am in solidarity with Venezuelan workers who do have that sorrow and do mourn.



But, of course, it's never about one leader.





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Stop London Met Victimisations

The senior management of London Metropolitan University seem driven to risky behaviour. If external forces don't plunge them into crisis (as the Border Agency did when it withdrew their ability to accredit overseas students), they do it themselves.



Not long ago they pioneered a madcap scheme for mass privatisation (suggesting that they aspired to be the Barnet of Higher Education). Now they have launched some of the most transparently unjust cases of victimisation seen in many years (http://stopthewitchhunt.wordpress.com/).



In a series of events which could almost have been scripted by Tom Sharpe, the management appear to have reacted to the election of an unwelcome staff governor by suddenly remembering a long disclosed criminal conviction. This they used not only to get the governor out of the way but, as a bonus, to suspend the union activist who had had a hand in his original appointment.



Captured by the logic of their actions they then had to suspend a leading academic in spite of the now obvious reputational damage to the University, as they ferociously paint themselves into an ever more irrational and reactionary corner.



The case was raised at UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) last month - where an official message giving full support to the two UNISON members was sent, as recorded in the official report (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8374).



Tomorrow's public meeting (6.20pm at Resource for London, 356 Holloway Road, N7 6PA)(http://stopthewitchhunt.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/public-meeting-stop-the-witch-hunt-at-london-met/) is therefore not only an opportunity to support the victims of this madness (Jawad, Max and Steve) - it is also a chance to rescue the management from themselves.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Local Government Pay - it's a citizenship issue too

I have copied the post below from the Facebook page “Local Government Workers Deserve a Decent Pay Rise” (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Local-Government-workers-deserve-a-decent-pay-rise/590019704361076). It makes the point that (in UNISON Conference speak) local government pay is a citizenship issue as well as a Service Group issue - and that we can therefore act as citizens as well as workers;

"Following the positive and encouraging decision of UNISON’s National Joint Council (NJC) Committee to recommend rejection of each of the unacceptable offers put to the local government trade unions by the Council employers, we can now expect a vigorous campaign led from the top of UNISON, and – we can all hope – the other trade unions too.

However, there is no reason why we should wait for a lead before taking our own action, as citizens, to support the position of the national trade union negotiators. Every local government worker is also a voter in local elections, whether for their own authority or elsewhere – and so are our families and friends.

The national employers side negotiators represent all the local Councils which are in the NJC – and each of those Councils is made up of individual elected Councillors. Unless you live in one of the minority of local authorities (mostly in the South East) who have opted out of the NJC, you can write – as a citizen – to your local Councillors in order to lobby them.

All you have to do to contact your Councillors is go to http://www.writetothem.com/and enter your postcode. This then takes you to a page which gives you the option to write to each or all of your Councillors. Before you visit the site, compose a brief statement which you can cut and paste on to the Writetothem website and they’ll pass your message on.

It’s best to keep it brief and to use your own words – but here are some points you could make (pick just one or two points that mean most to you, that you understand and can relate to). If you can also add a point or two about what the pay freeze and the decline in your living standard has meant to you over recent years that would be even better;

1. The last national pay rise for local government workers was implemented in 2009. High inflation, coupled with a three-year pay freeze, means that since 2009, pay for the Council workforce has fallen by 13% in real terms - it is now more than 10% below where it was in 1996 and will have fallen by 15% by April 1^st (the pay settlement date).
2. The employers’ offer is below the current rate of inflation and therefore represents a further pay detriment in real terms and a further erosion of living standards for local government workers. On a journey to restore pay values and living standards the offer represents setting off in reverse gear.
3. Nationally, 69% of UNISON members working in local government have had to cut back spending on food in the last twelve months according to a recent survey.
4. A pay settlement which more closely reflected the national trade union side claim, for a flat rate increase which benefits the lowest paid proportionately more and reduces pay inequality in the workforce, would put money into the hands of workers whose spending would have positive implications for the economy nationally and locally.
5. The lowest pay rate in local government has been stuck at £6.30 an hour for nearly four years – that’s only 11 pence above the National Minimum Wage.
6. 76% of the local government workforce are women, six out of ten working part-time. With the changes to working tax credits the pay freeze is hitting women hardest.
7. If there isn’t an improved offer to the local government workforce from the employers there is every prospect of an industrial dispute.
   Remember to finish by asking them to ask the Council Leader and Chief Executive to lobby the national employers to make an improved pay offer.
   Once you have written to your local Councillors why not encourage your partner, parents, friends or children to do the same? After all, they all want you to have a decent pay rise too!
   And, of course, those of us who are activists in trade union branches can also encourage all our members to take this action as citizens. No other group of workers has employers who are locally elected politicians who can so easily be lobbied. If we are serious about trying to win an argument with our members for strike action (and we have to be) let’s start by trying to persuade as many of them as possible to get lobbying."
   If you're on Facebook and haven't already "liked" that page, I commend it to you.

Local Government Pay - we're going to fight!

Sometimes even my irrepressible optimism of the will takes the odd knock. But just when you feel at your lowest, that is the point at which the class struggle comes along and reminds you why you do it all.



Today I have been reinvigorated by an excellent lobby of, and deputations to, the local authority by which I am employed. Even more though, I have found encouragement from a hitherto unlikely place.



The UNISON North West Regional Local Government Executive.



These are comrades with whom I have not always seen eye to eye (not even when looking at an icepick). However, at today's meeting of the UNISON National Joint Council Committee (the democratically elected body of lay UNISON members which dictates the policy of the majority of the trade union side nationally) a motion from the North West was agreed - and it was a motion I could not have written better myself.



In a nutshell, the Committee agreed not to ask our members to choose between the two "rancid horsemeat" options (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-real-choice-confronting-local.html?m=1) on pay offered by the employers but instead to consult members positively about their willingness to take action for a deal better than either of the options on offer from the bosses.



This was at the initiative of the North West Region, UNISON's largest Region (in terms of membership numbers). It reflected the agreed policy of the Greater London Region and -plainly - commanded majority support from Regional representatives.



We go towards the 2013 local government pay dispute with eyes wide open. It won't be easy winning members to take action, and still harder to win concessions as a result of such action. It is however essential that we throw all we can into this campaign.



Every UNISON local government activist must now prepare to secure the largest possible response to this call for action in the forthcoming consultation exercise.



Congratulations to the NJC Committee for giving a lead.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The real choice confronting local government workers about our pay

I didn't comment immediately on the miserly local government pay "offer" (summarised on UNISON's website - http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8382) because I know that hasty and terse electronic communication can get the author into a spot of bother.

Essentially, the employers are offering 1% if we accept the slashing of mileage rates paid to car users, and will reduce that offer to 0.6% for all but the lowest paid if we don't.

The other elements of the first ("preferred") offer are less significant. An extra day's leave on the national agreement may not echo in automatic improvements for those already getting more.

The loss of the unilateral arbitration clause is, I would suggest, of questionable importance, since the London Weighting dispute showed almost ten years ago that this supposedly "unilateral" clause is inoperable without the cooperation of the employers. It's importance is symbolic because the employers remember having a few extra tenths of a per cent squeezed out of them last time they cooperated.

Really though this choice is no choice at all. Even a 1% pay rise is a 2% pay cut in real terms, coming after a three year pay freeze during which the spending power of the earnings of a worker stuck at the top of their grade has fallen by a sixth. Neither offer is worth even considering.

The cynical device of an "either/or" pay offer could be a cunning ruse to divide the trade unions and the workforce - but only if there's something worth having for a significant chunk of the workforce in at least one of the options on offer. Here there isn't.

The position of the local government employers amounts to offering us two different bowls of rancid horsemeat, with just a slight difference in seasoning.

Heather Wakefield is right to deride this false choice of paltry offers (http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2013/02/council-pay-an-offer-they-can-refuse/) but the question which will face UNISON's National Joint Council (NJC) Committee tomorrow is not only what to say but what to do.

The choice which we should put to our members is not a choice between the employers' two options, but the honest choice between fighting for fair pay or swallowing what is offered.

I hope the NJC Committee finds the confidence, courage and common sense to give leadership by recommending rejection of both options and a campaign for industrial action to win a decent pay rise.

Until local government workers are prepared to stand together nationally, as teachers and civil servants are being asked to, we will not get a decent pay rise. Our members are entitled to a leadership which tells this truth.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Don't give up on 90 days!

The snappily titled Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111534106) comes into force on 6 April and reduces the statutory minimum consultation period when employers propose to make a hundred or more redundancies from 90 to 45 days.

This vindictive piece of legislation is plainly intended to weaken the hand of trade unions when bargaining to reduce redundancies, in circumstances in which the Workplace Employee Relations Study (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers) suggests that we are already failing to make a difference in almost four out of five cases (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/redundancies-could-we-do-better.html?m=1).

Many managers will assume that they can immediately start relying on the new reduced minimum from the implementation date of 6 April. We needn't let it be that easy.

First, wherever collectively agreed redundancy procedures explicitly include a 90 day consultation period, we can rely upon the incorporation of that agreement into the contracts of individual employees.

In these circumstances, employers will need to seek our agreement to amend a collective agreement.

Failing that they would have to sack and re-engage employees in order to get round their contractual right to a 90 day consultation period (and - depending upon the wording of a local collective agreement - they might have to allow a 90 day consultation period before they did so).

This is likely to apply in many cases and, even where they may be doubt about the status or meaning of a redundancy procedure, it's worth asserting with confidence the best reading we can, since the employers' legal advice is often (to them) as depressingly cautious (from their point of view) as ours (is to us).

Secondly, those of us who work for Labour local authorities at least should insist that our employers follow Labour Party policy, as expressed in Parliament by the Opposition Front Bench, and agree as a matter of policy, to continue to observe the 90 day consultation period until it is restored by an incoming Labour Government (fingers crossed!)

A suitably robust position from a local trade union side, making the point that a realistic consultation period can be as much in the interests of the employer as of employees (if it saves money on redundancy payments for example) ought to give sympathetic Labour Councillors enough ammunition to shoot down any adverse officer advice.

Thirdly, and arising from the last point, we need now to be raising the specific demand, within the Labour Party, that a draft statutory instrument to restore 90 days should be ready to be laid before Parliament on the first day of a Labour Government. This should be one of the first things we expect, and if Front Bench spokespeople are to be taken at their word we ought to be pushing at an open door (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/employment-rights-and-possible-labour.html?m=1).

If the trade union leaders are serious about how we relate to the Labour Party, I won't have to post a model motion for Constituency Labour Parties on this blog, because I'll be able to post a link to such a motion on the website of one (at least) of the "Big Three."

Most importantly though, we rank and file activists have to be serious in the here and now, where hundreds of thousands of us are at risk of redundancy even before our Labour Party is given another opportunity to disappoint us.

Let's not give up on 90 days easily or readily. If we are to retreat in the face of Government attacks (as we have been since the bungling of the pensions dispute) it must at least be a fighting retreat.

Members - and potential members - don't expect us to be able to win every battle.

But they rightly expect us to try.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Recruitment - Spring Forward

The official report of this week's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) is now online (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8374). It headlines the item which we discussed after agreeing our response to the TUC on a General Strike - the forthcoming recruitment drive.

This was an item which required not only an introduction from our General Secretary, but also a contribution from every Assistant General Secretary who was in the room. Since we have enough Assistant General Secretaries to field a five-a-side team (with a substitute) this took a while.

Dave Prentis put the case positively. We don't want to become a declining union, we want to recruit in order to grow and become stronger. He also made the point that UNISON hasn't frozen recruitment of staff (although we don't seem yet to have advertised for a Deputy General Secretary - http://www.unison.org.uk/jobs/). If we want to engage and enthuse activists then our message needs to be a positive one about how we are using our current strength and what more we could do with greater numbers.

Some other contributions to the discussion would be less persuasive in the branches. A focus on the income generated through recruitment is entirely rational, but our shop stewards will be more interested in strengthening our bargaining position with employers than firming up our bank balance.

Similarly, the suggestion that we should communicate a message that "no branch can hide" from the recruitment drive is probably not the sort of positive encouragement most likely to inspire activists. The official report manages to avoid that tone, but I can't be the only busy Branch Secretary who will read the comment that "from the start of the advertising campaign on 11 March 'everybody has to be doing something'." with a wry grin.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am sceptical about the efficacy of "free standing" recruitment drives. I agree very much with our General Secretary that "We recruit best where we've got issues and we recruit best where we've got branch organisation." I asked about the evidence base for the assumption that the recruitment drive will be effective and was told that we will be drawing on the experience of USDAW, the shop workers union, which has continuously to recruit vigorously because of their high membership turnover.

Bearing in mind that even witty cynicism never built a trade union, I think that activists need to engage in and take ownership of this national recruitment drive in our localities. The issues which we have to recruit around, most obviously job (in)security and the threat of redundancies, can be the basis for local application of the national initiative.

The initiative will be launched from 11 March and will therefore coincide with the working through of some of the job cuts which will be the consequence of budget setting in local government branches. Branches facing cuts will need to integrate their involvement in the recruitment drive into an energetic response to the cuts.

I'll return to this topic I'm sure.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON - "TUC get off your knees and organise a serious campaign"

I said yesterday that UNISON's response to the TUC consultation on "the practicalities of a General Strike" warranted an entire blog post and, given interest expressed by some of UNISON's leading Twitterati, I thought I had best get on with it.

The background to this document, which I hope we will publish officially, is the consultation with affiliates launched following last September's decision (backed by UNISON) to consider "the practicalities" of a General Strike.

UNISON's response starts with an acknowledgement that living standards have fallen back to 2003 levels as the Government pursues a programme of austerity which manifestly fails to achieve its stated aims.

The demonstrations on 26 March 2011 and 20 October 2012 and the strike on 30 November 2011 all show that we can mobilise opposition to the Government and "it is regrettable that the TUC failed to build on these events and that a degree of momentum was lost."

(I've included that quote verbatim as cats have few opportunities to laugh).

We can't afford to sit and wait for a Labour Government and the trade union movement needs to provide leadership and an alternative economic strategy.

There are a number of issues we have to consider in relation to a possible General Strike. First, it is a tactic not a strategy and ought not to be counterposed to other tactics.

Having demolished that straw man, we go on to observe that the willingness of our members to engage in industrial action is falling (and, in response to a question from your humble blogger, our General Secretary confirmed that this means since 30 November 2011). As we have on

We need to take account of falling trade union membership and density (and - again - in answering a question, the General Secretary confirmed that he didn't necessarily mean UNISON, as our density in many areas is rising as non-union members are made redundant in even greater numbers than our members). This is certainly true across the movement as a whole.

We appreciate that leading labour lawyers (Hendy and Ewing) have suggested that current anti-union laws contravene our human rights, but we're cautious about legal challenges and our own Rules require us to ballot for action.

Our overall conclusion is that the TUC should be leading a serious campaign to increase our members' confidence and industrial strength so that our members come to see mass industrial action as necessary and desirable.

So our answer to the question of when a General Strike should take place is?

Not yet.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The Practicalities of Considering the Practicalities of a General Strike

This blog post is only for those interested in the detail of life on decision making on the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) (Regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger). It should not be shown before the watershed...

At 11am this morning, our President Chris Tansley, reasonably and justifiably confident that the NEC would get through our business before, or shortly after, lunch, let us have a tea break (tea and coffee being verboten in the prestigous ninth floor Conference Chamber where most of the NEC meet).

He suggested we have a somewhat longer break than normal, so that the NEC Policy Committee could use the time to have a brief meeting to agree our response to consultation from the TUC following last September's Congress decision to give consideration to "the practicalities of a General Strike."

In the event the Policy Committee debated the issue for ninety minutes, with the rest of the NEC told to go to lunch an hour into our "tea break". As I was minding people's stuff in the first floor video link room, I was treated to the experience (probably unique in human history) of watching the UNISON NEC Policy Committee as a silent movie (with snippets of sound when someone on the top table pressed the wrong button).

This episode has probably taken the NEC's rigid Committee structure (and its fairly recently developed convention of "Committee collective responsibility") to a new height of absurdity, since the decision taken by the Policy Committee during the tea break then became a recommendation to the whole NEC straight after lunch (although the minority on the Policy Committee who had not supported their Committee's decision were bound both to silence and to support the decision).

Given that the majority of the NEC were despatched to drink tea and eat biscuits while the minority who are on the Policy Committee debated this important question, we clearly might just as well have had the whole debate as a whole NEC, as we had numerous other debates. As with the insistence last year by the Chair of Policy that that Committee dominate NEC representation on the TUC delegation, there were grumbles from more than just the usual suspects.

The delegation to the Policy Committee of all TUC matters appears increasingly to be an error which should be rectified. Alternatively we should treat delegation to Committees in a much less rigid way. The Rules permit us to establish Committees and delegate authority to them, but there would have been nothing to prevent the NEC dealing directly with this issue without it having first been to the Policy Committee.

The substance of UNISON's response was thorough and comprehensive, and deserves its own blog post in the near future. In a nutshell, UNISON's official view is that a General Strike is a tactic rather than a strategy, and that it is not to be ruled out. However "consideration of a general strike can only be the culmination, rather than the beginning, of a campaign.

I'll consider the practicalities of blogging more on this topic soon...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

General Secretary's report - Starting with solidarity

General Secretary, Dave Prentis, began his report this morning to the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) with two very important matters.

First, he joined President, Chris Tansley, in expressing unequivocal solidarity with NEC member, and Chair of the London Metropolitan University Branch, Max Watson, who has been suspended by his employer (http://www.londonmetunison.org.uk/campaigns/suspension-of-jawad-botmeh-and-max-watson-stop-the-witch-hunt/). This campaign has, as well as UNISON's wholehearted backing, strong support from a wide range of trade unionists and students, with 150 people attending a recent lunchtime lobby.

Dave invited Max to say a few words, and Max, in explaining UNISON's belief that his suspension is due to his legitimate trade union activity, said "this is about our ability to challenge management, rather than just manage their challenges" (an excellent description of the role to which rank and file trade unionists should aspire, as opposed to the strictly subordinate role which some managers might prefer for us).

Dave then moved on to explain UNISON's strong support for our health service members who have been taking strike action to defend their pay and conditions in Mid-Yorkshire (http://uniteresist.org/2013/01/5-day-strike-at-wakefield-hospital/). The members had undertaken five successful days of strike action. The dispute continues and continues to have UNISON's support.

It was important that Dave began with these key disputes, not least because such disputes are currently rare. The NEC was told that UNISON currently has one group of members taking industrial action and one "live" industrial action ballot. This is the lowest level of industrial action in UNISON's twenty year history and corresponds with official statistics which show UK strike action at its lowest level since records began (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/january-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Labour-disputes--not-seasonally-adjusted-).

In these circumstances, a vital role of leadership is to inspire confidence, and Dave's opening remarks were calculated to give confidence to our members at London Met and in Mid-Yorkshire that UNISON stands with them.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

NEC Rule Amendments to National Delegate Conference

Following on from the last post (and as the stalwarts of our Policy Committee are debating our response to the TUC consultation on a General Strike whilst the rest of our NEC lunches), I can report on the Rule Amendments which the NEC has agreed to submit to National Delegate Conference.



The NEC is submitting seven rule amendments.



The first (to Rule C.2.6) tidies up the definition of a Retired Member so that members who obtain employment post-retirement can subsequently resume retired membership.



The second (to Rule D.1.3.3.1) corrects an anomaly in cross-referencing which was inadvertently introduce in 2008. (I'm wondering if even I might be in with a chance of a Conference speech on that one...)



The third Rule Amendment (to Rule D.4.2) revises the definition of the purposes of self-organisation arising (if belatedly) from the review of self-organisation.



The fourth amendment (to Rule D.1.3) permits small branches to be grouped for Conference representation. I asked for an amendment to the proposal to clarify that this would be purely voluntary (which was agreed).



The fifth amendment (to Rule D.1.10.4) is a minor enabling amendment arising from the previous amendment.



The sixth Rule change (to Rule G.2.2) clarifies the financial responsibilities of Branch Committees.



The seventh amendment - which I opposed at the NEC meeting - is to Rule H.4.2 and requires all branches to hold their current account with Unity Trust Bank. I opposed this because I wasn't persuaded that this ought to be compulsory. However the large majority of my NEC colleagues were persuaded and the Rule Change will be on the Conference agenda.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON NEC motions to Conference

UNISON's National Executive Council meeting having been interrupted by an unexpectedly prolonged "special" meeting of our Policy Committee, I have the opportunity to report on the first half of the meeting without breaking the promise I gave to a previous President not to blog during meetings.

The NEC has agreed thirteen policy motions for submission to National Delegate Conference. I assume we are exceeding our normal quota of twelve (the number which the NEC can prioritise) because we anticipate that one (a holding motion on the review of branch funding) will be timetabled automatically.

I'll blog separately about branch funding soon as I think it's a vital question and I've been involved (with a branch hat on) in discussions between branches seeking sensible change.

The other policy motions are, two from the Development and Organisation Committee (on Organising and "Promoting Learning as a recruitment and organising tool"), two from the International Committee (on Colombia and Burma) and eight from the Policy Committee.

The Policy Committee motions are on;
Public Services;
Challenging inequality and the squeeze on living standards;
Campaigning for fair and progressive taxation;
Fighting welfare and benefit cuts;
Resisting the pay cap;
Fighting for employment rights;
Outsourcing and privatisation, and;
An alternative to austerity.

I proposed changes to the pay cap and employment rights motions, and accepted slightly different amendments suggested instead by the Chair of Policy.

On employment rights I am pleased that the motion will (when it shortly appears in the Preliminary Agenda) demonstrate to activists and branches that our NEC is working to ensure that UNISON members bringing employment tribunal claims with the support of the Union will not have to pay the fees which are to be introduced later in the year.

The text of the motions (as, in those two cases, slightly amended) will be published in any case shortly, but if any Greater London UNISON branches have an urgent need to see the text of NEC policy motions to Conference, let me know.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Waiting for the great leap forwards?

Reviewing the papers for tomorrow's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) I am very struck by the way in which the forthcoming recruitment drive fails to relate to or correspond with anything that is going on around us.

Up and down the country, UNISON's thousand plus employees (and we tens of thousands of lay activists) are being encouraged to gear up for a big push to recruit non-members (particularly "free riders" in our unionised "core employers"). This work is to take centre stage for at least a couple of weeks in March.

It is important to note that we have no empirical evidence whatsoever that such a voluntarist drive to recruit, independent of and unrelated to any specific, concrete issue or dispute, will deliver the goods. We have done this before (around the last tv advertising campaign) and, for the effort involved, the return in terms of recruitment was minimal.

The evidence which we have is of massive national surges in recruitment to our union occuring around major national disputes, when potential members could see our union being used properly by our members to mobilise our collective strength.

This explains the hidden history of the recruitment drive, which is that it is plainly a replacement for the stillborn strategy of building a national fight over pay.

If we are indeed giving up on the coordinated fight over pay, for which UNISON persuaded the TUC to call last year, then the least that can be said is that we are doing so prematurely.

The notion that pay freezes will "always" be smashed by industrial action is not persuasive in a twenty first century world in which 2012 saw barely a quarter of a million working days lost through strike action (and where across the economy fewer than 30% of workers are unionised).

However, recognition that our earlier position may have been a little gung ho does not require us to practice a complete "volte face" and to give up on fighting over pay at a national level. Certainly a national pay dispute in local government would be the best context to resist authorities seeking to break away from national pay bargaining.

A subsidiary benefit of a pay fight would be a boost to recruitment, and growth for the union as occured during the pensions dispute. (Unfortunately the outcome of the pensions dispute is an important element of the reason why such a fight is currently unlikely).

It is because such a pay fight is increasingly less likely that the "official" effort which would have gone into such a fight is now to be diverted into the barren channel of a "free-standing" recruitment drive.

Trade union recruitment "as an end in itself" is not a priority for most union members. For those of us who are lay members, the trade union is a tool to defend our interests not the goal of all our efforts.

However, all socialists in the movement share the aspiration to grow the union because it will make us - at least potentially - more powerful and effective.

I just think, if it's going to work this recruitment drive needs to have been situated alongside one or more real disputes or issues.

I hope I'm wrong and will participate loyally in the recruitment drive. I just think it would better if it were linked to our members' interests.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with the NUJ at the BBC - no compulsory redundancies!

With no Today programme to listen to I'll try an early blog post to try to cope with the loss!



And what better than to send solidarity with the NUJ strikers who have disrupted essential early morning listening in opposition to compulsory redundancies (http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2815).



However deep the cuts we face, there is almost always something more that can be done to avert compulsory redundancies.



I think we need to see more such action since, even before the Government's attack on redundancy consultation rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/12/18/government-confirms-redundancy-consultation-period-cuts_n_2321074.html) we are only seeing change to employers' redundancy proposals through consultation in a little over one in five cases across the economy as a whole (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/01/redundancies-could-we-do-better.html?m=1).



This, from the NUJ, is what you can do - 

 

- Visit your local picket line to show solidarity.  

 

- Send messages of support by emailing: campaigns@nuj.org.uk 

 

- Tweet your messages of support with the hashtag - #BBCStrike  

 

- Email the BBC Trust to tell them you support the strike to stop the cuts 

trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk or if you would like to make a general comments or ask a question about the BBC you can call 03700 100 222; textphone 03700 100 212   

 

- Ask your local MP to sign the BBC redundancies early day motion (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1071) - you can contact your MP online (http://www.writetothem.com/).      

 

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Barnet - Stop the Privatisation of Regulatory Services

Below is a message from Barnet UNISON asking us all to take some simple action in defence of public services;



The government is using Barnet Council as a pilot to privatise public services, leaving people without influence on policy through the ballot box and without a say in how their council is run and their council tax spent. We need to prevent the privatisation of Regulatory Services to ensure that councils fulfil their statutory duties to protect the health, and safety of residents. 

 

We are concerned that Barnet Council is about to hand over its Regulatory Services (in particular the Environmental Health and Trading Standards services) to a private company. Councils have statutory responsibilities to monitor the private sector in order to ensure the health and safety of their residents. The current high- profile national public-health scandal about processed foods emphasises that private companies do not adequately monitor their own activities, leaving the public at risk. If Barnet Council is allowed to privatise these services, it will set a dangerous precedent for other councils. We call for an immediate stop to the privatisation of council Regulatory Services throughout the country.

 

Sign our petition and join us on the Barnet Spring March to save our services: 23 March, Finchley Central Station in London, 11am.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_the_privatisation_of_Regulatory_Services/?tFMrBab



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support Max Watson and Jawad Botmeh!

I am reproducing below a message sent by the London Metropolitan University Branch of UNISON to its members, concerning a vital lobby taking place tomorrow (13 February). If you can possibly support this important event please do!

STOP THE WITCH HUNT - DEFEND JAWAD AND MAX!
JOIN THE LOBBY 2-3PM WEDNESDAY 13 FEB, ROCKET ENTRANCE TOWER BUILDING

Dear All

STOP THE WITCH HUNT - DEFEND JAWAD AND MAX! JOIN THE LOBBY 2-3PM WEDNESDAY
13 FEB, ROCKET ENTRANCE TOWER BUILDING

** Three weeks ago the VC threatened to derecognise your UNISON Branch.*

*
** One week ago your Branch Chair and the union supported, newly elected
staff governor were suspended.**

Max Watson, your Chair, and Jawad Botmeh, the elected staff governor and a
FSSH staff member at the Working Lives Research Institute Jewry Street,
have been suspended by the University pending investigation of a 'serious
matter of concern' relating to 'gross misconduct'. HR have failed to
provide clear reasons for this, but we are told it relates to Jawad's
appointment to the University five years ago. We regard this as the latest
in a series of escalating attacks on your democratic right to Union
representation by your Union, in an attempt to weaken the defence of your
rights UNISON are fighting for.

SOME BACKGROUND...
*Jawad and Max have done nothing wrong.* They have not in any way acted
improperly and did not mislead HR regarding Jawad's appointment as a staff
member.

We are completely convinced that Jawad's 1996 conviction for conspiracy to
cause explosions was an appalling miscarriage of justice. Amnesty
International <http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=14085>,
UNISON's
National Delegate
Conference<http://unison.co.uk/MotionText.asp?DocumentID=992860>and
the MPs who signed an early-day
motion <http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/111> all share this view.

Local MP Jeremy Corbyn also takes this position on Jawad's innocence and
fully supports Max and Jawad  (see attached letter of support).

Regardless, Jawad *declared* his conviction on application to work at
London Met, and legally has a right to be employed at the University.
Indeed, London Met HR were made aware of Jawad's conviction some time ago.
UNISON are proud that Jawad is employed at the University, and that we work
for a progressive institution (or so we thought) that actively supports the
right to work, enshrined in article 23 of the Human Rights Act.  We are
proud to have Jawad as a member of our Branch and also of the ongoing
support UNISON has shown him over the years, shown by the motion passed at
the 2003 UNISON National Delegate Conference (see above) which clearly
advocates Jawad's conviction was unjust.

JOIN THE LOBBY 2-3PM WEDNESDAY 13 FEB, ROCKET ENTRANCE TOWER BUILDING
*We urge ALL members to support Jawad and Max and attend a lobby
2.00-3.00pm Wednesday 13th February - Rocket Entrance, Tower Building.*
The short notice for the lobby is due to Jawad's formal hearing being held
this Wednesday at 2.30pm despite the fact that Jawad is on annual leave and
unable to attend - please come and make your voice heard!

Your Union has been there to support you and now we are asking you to
support your Union.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?

  - Attend the Lobby.
  - Send messages of support and solidarity to unison@londonmet.ac.uk :
  encourage friends, colleagues in other institutions and your community to
  do the same
  - Donations to support campaigning - cheques to UNISON London
  Metropolitan University gratefully received.

A national mass of support is already building around both Jawad's and Max's
cases and will continue to grow. We feel Jawad has suffered enough and does
not deserve a further injustice at the hands of London Metropolitan
University. We are convinced that Max is being targeted purely becuase of
the strength and leadership he has shown as your London Met UNISON Chair.
An attack on Max and Jawad is an attack on all London Met UNISON members
and we must stand shoulder to shoulder with them.  We are prepared to take
all actions necessary to defend Jawad and Max and therefore all our
members' rights to be represented.

In solidarity,

Catherine Maguire
Alex Tarry
Allan Pike
Eddie Rowley
Jonathan McCree
Susan Lloyd
Karl Acquah
David Summers
Ivan Roman Orgaz
Megan Redmond
Sara Masson
Chris Manna
Jim McKenzie
Ros Hanmer
Yola Adeyemi Laurence
*On behalf of the London Met UNISON Branch Committee*

Claire Locke
Anthony Cannon
Harry Lister - UNISON London Regional Organiser
Sandy Nicoll - SOAS UNISON Branch Secretary

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Employment rights and a possible Labour Government

Living, as I do, a wild life, I spent this evening at a public meeting on employment law in Brixton. Speakers addressed the Government's assault upon individual employment rights, that latest phase of which is in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/114951/enterprise-and-regulatory-reform-bill-is-implemented.aspx) which is still passing through Parliament.



Chuka Umunna spoke well against what the Coalition are up to. The Bill seems poorly named since rather than "reform" regulation the Coalition want to rip it all up - and the only thing to do with "Enterprise" is that the Government are also on a "five year mission" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek) - but theirs is to attack workers' rights.



Chuka couldn't tell us what we might find in the next Labour manifesto but (the tease!) he flashed us a bit of ankle by pointing out what we could read into Labour's consistent Parliamentary opposition to various specific retrograde steps (such as the extension of the qualifying period of employment before workers can bring unfair dismissal claims).



He also asked the audience what it is we (trade unionists) want in terms of collective employment rights from a future Labour Government. Professor Keith Ewing, of the Institute of Employment Rights, had the answer - which was that we should comply with our international treaty obligations.



That seems sound (and I don't only say that because he told me that my request for the Trade Union Freedom Bill (http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/index.cfm?mins=248&minors=244&majorsubjectid=2) or - at least - the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/lawfulindustrialactionminorerrors.html) was too timid!



I think we trade unionists need to give more thought not only to how we shall deal with the Tory attacks on our employment rights but also the detail of our demands upon an incoming Labour Government.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Broadening the fight against cuts

Having had to address Councillors about budget cuts I was late to a packed meeting last night in defence of one of our local fire stations (http://www.saveclapham.com/).

The turnout was impressive not just in numbers but breadth, and the leading role of local Labour Councillors, who had got the local MP and London Assembly Member down to speak alongside the FBU, was noteworthy.

Boris Johnson's plans to close fire stations can be stopped, and the widest resistance, uniting firefighters and the community, is clearly essential.

The support from Labour Party members and elected representatives for this campaign is welcome for three reasons.

First, Labour Councillors and MPs can play a positive role in helping to maximise community mobilisation, as we have seen in the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign.

Secondly, involving Labour Party members in a campaign as Labour Party members has a positive impact on the Party as it will tend to radicalise them (us!) It reminds Party members that there is a politics beyond elections and a purpose beyond proving our suitability for government.

Thirdly, the more the Party is mobilised to resist cuts, the more we can force comrades to consider the contradiction between resisting the cuts in the community and implementing them in the Council chamber.

Last night, in our Town Hall, senior Councillors tried to keep their spirits up whilst nodding through further cuts in a silent and almost empty room. A little over a mile away, three of their Labour Council colleagues were at the head of a packed and determined meeting, out to defeat Tory cuts.

With many more cuts to come over the next four years than we have seen since the General Election, broadening and deepening opposition to these cuts, whilst seeking to encourage the debate about what Labour office-holders should do, is clearly in the interests of public service workers (and all who depend upon our services).

In this context I'm pleased to report that sources close to the UNISON Centre suggest that UNISON will indeed be on board for the recently announced "Peoples' Assembly Against Austerity" (http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/05/people-assembly-against-austerity) which appears to be our best opportunity yet to draw together the disparate threads of opposition to austerity.

If we are to stand a chance of getting a significantly better Government after the next election we need now to draw those Labour Party members mobilising to defend their local hospital or their local fire station around the broader anti-cuts agenda. UNISON's backing for the Peoples Assembly may mean that we can fashion that into one of the tools with which to do that job.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Sussex students show the way

It's great to see students in occupation against privatisation up the Lewes Road at Sussex University (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-21402507). The increasing penetration of the public sector in general, and the education sector in particular, by private capital distorts and perverts a core public service.



The occupiers have thought through how to use the public act of occupation both directly and symbolically effective whilst minimising disruption of the very service they seek to protect. They are occupying a Conference Room from which the University management, ideologically committed to privatisation and the marketisation of education. Their occupation does not disrupt the education which the University was built to provide.



By their principled stand the students pose a challenge to our trade unions to find our way towards more effective opposition to the destruction of our Welfare State.



You can express your support online at http://sussexagainstprivatization.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/solidarity-statement-sign-now/ or by tweeting @occupy_sussex. I hope you will.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Why we need rank and file organisation

Trade unions are organisations created by workers to advance our interests by evening things up in a labour market, and in workplaces, in which we otherwise have less power than employers.

Our unions express our interests as workers but also become institutional expressions of the inevitable day to day compromises which flow from trying to get the best for workers in a society not designed in our interests.

Furthermore, as unions grow and - necessarily - employ staff to carry out some of our functions, a bureaucracy develops and power can become concentrated in the hands of those who are not themselves "workers" and whose interests are in the organisation itself rather more than the purposes for which it was established.

There is, therefore, inevitable - and healthy - contention, and even conflict, within our trade unions as we deal with the conflicting pressures to confront or conciliate with employers, and as the interests of the membership interplay with the interests of those for whom the organisation itself is their priority.

For a hundred years (and probably longer) rank and file trade union activists have grappled with the dilemma of how most constructively to engage in this inevitable contention.

The Clyde Workers Committee (http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redclygrobyecwc.htm) - expressing perhaps the finest example of the "first shop stewards movement" was an inspirational example of "bottom-up" rank and file organising in the trade unions ("with the officials when we can, against them when we must").

Shortly before, militants in the South Wales Miners Federation published "The Miners' Next Step", an inspirational critique of class collaborationist leadership (http://www.llgc.org.uk/ymgyrchu/Llafur/1926/MNS.htm).

The insights of these pioneers of our movement suggest that militant rank and file workers will always need to organise within, and independently of, the structures of our own labour movement in order to check the tendencies to collaboration and bureaucratisation which arise, not from any characteristics of individuals in leading positions but from the structure of our trade unions and the way in which they necessarily function in a capitalist society.

The dilemma facing socialists in trade unions in general, and UNISON in particular, is how to bring such rank and file activists together when they are divided between different political groups and parties, each of which appears to the others as a competitor for the attention and support of workers generally.

Throughout the 1990s I participated in the Campaign for a Fighting and Democratic UNISON (CFDU) which fought a long war of rearguard action to protect branch autonomy and the democratic rights of UNISON members, leading to the compromise on union democracy at UNISON's fifth Conference in 1998.

The CFDU drew together a variety (or - if you prefer - "rag,tag and bobtail") of Labour and independent leftwingers in an uneasy alliance with activists who were in the Socialist Party, whilst members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) abstained.

Around the turn of the century we managed to draw together the forces around the CFDU, the SWP and other left activists to create UNISON United Left (UUL) which was able - briefly - to "do what it said on the tin" until the Socialist Party comrades announced their departure in a UNISON Conference bulletin in June 2004, transparently because they (incorrectly) calculated that they couldn't be sure that their preferred candidate would be backed by UUL in the General Secretary election (in which your blogger was then sacrificial candidate and obtained a splendid 7.5% of the vote for a good bronze medal position).

It goes without saying that I think that the Socialist Party comrades were wrong to leave UUL nine years ago (and that their wafer-thin "political" justification for this around their hostility to the Labour Party is entirely contradicted by their continuing participation in the United Left in UNITE). It would be equally wrong were comrades in the SWP to abandon united work having taken umbrage at some sharp political criticisms made recently by other lefts (myself included). I don't expect that this will happen.

Those of us who can see the need for militant rank and file activists to organise to improve the organisation and combativeness of our class have an obligation to put this objective ahead of Party or sectarian concerns.

With strike action at its lowest point whilst redundancies are proceeding apace and a pay freeze has held down our living standards we clearly need better rank and file organisation in the UK's most significant trade union.

I hope to be able to blog in a few months about how we have achieved this.

That'll be the "optimism of the will" again...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange