Unions need to answer UKIP

The local election results are not good.

Our Party is not where it needs to be now to win a General Election in 2015 (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/local-elections-labour-isnt-where-it-needs-be-win).

Opposition to austerity is being drawn around Farage (our very own Poujade - http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/aug/28/guardianobituaries1), and around the poisonous nostalgia of the populist right. UKIP is clearly an "English" manifestation of the anti-political feeling expressed elsewhere is support for the Five Stars or Syriza.

The labour movement needs to find a way to articulate the anger and disillusionment which UKIP are channeling - which means that we need a clear and assertive statement of the progressive anti-austerity policies supported by the trade unions - in opposition to the neo-liberal policies of both this Government and its predecessor.

The polished moderation of "Progress" types in suits is the exact opposite of what we need from the Labour Party - but we may well be consigned to more of that if the trade unions continue to be as useless in influencing the Party as we are now.

UNISON's laughable approach of backing any UNISON member going for a Parliamentary selection, regardless of their politics, is simply one expression of the almost apolitical nature of the practical intervention in the Party by the big unions.

There's no point making headline-grabbing speeches to win votes at Party Conference if the unions aren't populating the Parliamentary Labour Party with people who will fight to put policies into effect.

With so many thousands having voted for the right-wing populism of UKIP, unions like UNISON also have to recognise that some of our members will have been among those voters.

If the labour movement cannot articulate the anger of our members with a progressive voice, criticising the political establishment from a working-class point of view, then we'll cede that role to the populist right.

We need to embark upon a self-confident programme of political education to build support for our policies, to politicise our trade unions and democratise our political work.

On several occasions since the General Election we have caught a glimpse of the potential political power of our labour movement (in March 2011, October 2012 and - above all - November 2011).

It is because we have repeatedly failed to capitalise on these opportunities or to sustain the momentum of our struggles, that we have allowed the political space to be created in which anger at austerity can be translated into votes for a return to an imagined 1950s.

The sense of identity to which UKIP speaks and from which it draws strength is reactionary, xenophobic and homophobic. It's "little Englandism" shades into racism and is socially conservative in every way. Yet it clearly appeals to many whose interests would be better served by the progressive policies of our movement.

The trade unions must become more vocal, more radical and more assertive if we are to draw people - including our own members - around a positive alternative to austerity.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Vote Labour

There are no local elections tomorrow where I live or where I work, but in much of England a minority of the electorate will cast votes for local Councillors.



The option which ought to be open to us is to vote Labour. Working people need a political voice and that is what the Labour Party was created to be.



It's not much of that right now of course, and hasn't been for some time. The key problem is not so much the infestation of Blairite careerists from "Progress" - it's more the consistent inability of the trade unions to use our influence effectively.



My own trade union has a risible approach of backing anyone in a Parliamentary selection if they are members of our Union.



Given that UNISON members in Parliament delivered a bigger majority for Foundation Hospitals - against UNISON policy - than the Government could then command in the Commons as a whole, it is clear that the current approach of the big unions to the Labour Party is almost the exact opposite of that which you would adopt if you sought real influence and power.



Nevertheless, the trade unions could still one day seek to do real and useful political work on behalf of our members. Labour retains the potential to be a party of and for working people. Particularly if we shifted the leadership of our trade unions we might then have a Party worthy of support.



No credible electoral alternative exists or is in prospect for working people. As mind-bendingly impossible as it may seem that we should be able to turn the Labour Party into a vehicle for socialist politics, this prospect is less remote (by an order of magnitude) than the abiding fantasy that some other, better, Party can be built to the left.



Vote Labour.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

May Day solidarity with mid-Yorkshire

Today, May Day, is a day for solidarity.

UNISON members employed at the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust - where the Union is balloting all our members for strike action, need that solidarity today (http://m.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/unison-to-ballot-3-000-members-at-mid-yorkshire-hospitals-trust-1-5626886) as they prepare for a branch-wide ballot.

Adrian O'Malley, Unison Mid Yorkshire branch secretary, said: "As we expected the Trust is pushing forward with more downbandings and job losses in other departments. Clinical Nurse Specialists, Dental Nurses and more Admin staff are at risk of job and pay cuts. At the same time the Trust is employing more senior managers and has given over £4 million to private management consultants Ernst and Young.

"We have been forced into balloting our whole membership as the Trust is unwilling to discuss any alternatives to the downbandings (pay cuts)."

"The Trust is holding a gun to its staff's heads and saying take a pay cut or your sacked. We cannot allow this to continue. Industrial relations within the Trust have broken down due to the senior managements bullying."

Our members in mid-Yorkshire offer a refreshing alternative to the failed approach of swallowing attacks on pay and conditions to save jobs. As the North West Region pointed out to the National Joint Council Committee in local government, we've had both a pay freeze and massive job losses in local government over recent years. The health service faces similar medicine.

After the premature ending of the public service pensions dispute (following the biggest strike action for decades on 30 November 2011), last year - 2012 - saw the lowest level of official strike action since records began. In the twelve months to November 2012 only 250,000 working days were lost to strike action (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/january-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Labour-disputes--not-seasonally-adjusted-).

(Which is to say, in the whole year that followed the strike action on 30 November 2011, the sum total of all the officially recorded strike action was perhaps a quarter of the action which took place on that single day.)

However, 2013 has seen a modest resurgence of action, including by the CWU and PCS.

The decision of UNISON health workers in mid-Yorkshire to ballot for branch-wide action is a timely inspiration to us all - particularly in UNISON.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Time to stop retreating

I was interested to read some of the information chosen by the author to "contextualise" the employers' laughable 1% pay offer to local government workers (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) in UNISON's pay bulletin number 9 today.

There are two ways to interpret the inclusion of the following information in this particular bulletin at this particular time;

·                    "Half of councils have ended NJC mileage allowances and moved our members onto HMRC rates. For those who do significant mileage as part of their jobs, this means subsidising their employer on top of a three-year pay freeze and other cuts to conditions

·                    Around 30% of councils have cut unsocial hours payments and/or overtime pay – with a massive effect on low paid women workers in particular

·                    Over 25% of councils have cut pay at a local level and others have imposed unpaid annual leave."
 
I don't doubt these things are true, but many things are true - and not all truth could be squeezed into pay bulletin number 9.

One reading (which I prefer) of the motivation for including this particular information is that it reinforces the case for a decent pay rise (which 1% is not!) - this may encourage the reader to think in terms of rejecting 1% and fighting on for our claim for a substantial pay increase.

Another reading is that the selective presentation of this information, which tells a disappointing tale about our union organisation in these very many local authorities where we have failed to defend national conditions of service, could demoralise the reader and lead them towards accepting 1% (and therefore a 2% pay cut in real terms).

The conclusion which I draw is that, whatever the reason for this information having been presented to us in this way at this time, we need to face up to the fact that in many local authorities we have faced defeats and retreats on pay and conditions.

And we need also to conclude that now is a good time to stop this.

Every branch which loses (or fails to mount) a fight to defend conditions of service invites other employers to launch attacks on other branches. There is, of course, no shame in fighting and losing (though there is in failing to fight).

The greatest shame is that our national trade union has failed adequately to encourage and support the branches who have suffered the defeats now itemised in pay bulletin number 9.

Plainly we should reject 1% and try to build a national fight for decent pay (as our Scottish sisters and brothers have already resolved to do). Without a national fight for a decent national pay rise there is precious little point in having a national union.

However, we must also begin to fight nationally to enforce and improve national conditions. We should be fighting not just to hold on to the Green Book but to improve it.

Pay Bulletin number 9 also says that UNISON "will be issuing new bargaining advice shortly to branches and Regions on sick pay and car allowances as it seems clear that the employers will urge councils to cut them further at local level."

The Lambeth branch has successfully defended both sick pay and car allowances over the last year.

In the unlikely event that the national Union doesn't come to us to ask how we think we did this, I can always share information here.

It's not rocket science really though. We need to build rank and file organisation and to provide leadership which is unwilling to make concessions on conditions of service. We have to be prepared to threaten legal and industrial action at the drop of a hat, whilst also always being willing to find a pragmatic resolution if the employers are willing to talk rather than fight.

It's time to stop retreating.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Labour Leaders opt for 1980s period drama?

The 1980s seem increasingly to weigh like a nightmare on the minds of the living - like "Ashes to Ashes" for our political leaders.

Ed Miliband has decided to play Neil Kinnock with an attack on Len McCluskey (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/24/ed-miliband-union-leader). Miliband has to cast McCluskey (somewhat implausibly) as a "Scargill" figure in order to appease the very Blairites (in the Shadow Cabinet and beyond) against whom McCluskey was warning him (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/04/len-mccluskey-if-ed-miliband-seduced-blairites-hell-be-defeated) - one of whom has apparently claimed that our largest trade unions have been taken over by a new "Bennite tendency" (which will doubtless come as news to many at the UNISON Centre!)

In a sense neither McCluskey nor Miliband are addressing the other at all, each are actually addressing constituencies standing behind them (in one case the Blairites and in the other activists who saw a strong showing for the grassroots challenger in the recent General Secretary election).

Whereas Len McCluskey sees the need for radicalism and imagination to rejuvenate our movement, however, Ed Miliband appears worryingly close to the caricature of a prisoner of those sad people in and around "Progress" who will never stop fighting the inner Party battles of the 1980s.

McCluskey was right - and not at all "disloyal" - to be sharply critical of the Blairites whose vision of a Labour government is of continuity with the thirty-five year old neo-liberal consensus. It's not just that such policies are unlikely to win - even if they did they wouldn't fundamentally change the fact that we are under attack from the Government.

It's nonsense to characterise the leaders of the big trade unions as "Bennites" (and I should know, I am one)(a Bennite that is, not the leader of a big trade union!) - but we do need a much more assertive approach from the trade unions to the Party.

In particular, we don't need to see votes and energy from UNITE, UNISON, GMB or any unions being expended in support of candidates in Parliamentary (or other) selections unless those candidates can be relied upon to back policies in support of working people.

There is, unfortunately, no evidence of the sort of concerted and effective joint union work that could make a positive difference to the composition of the next Parliamentary Labour Party.

That's the real shame. It's not the 1980s and we need to move on.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

1%? No Thanks!

Today the national negotiators representing the employers of more than a million local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (the largest organised bargaining group in the UK economy) made a final pay offer of 1% with no strings, effective 1 April.

Perennial optimist, and lead negotiator for the GMB, Brian Strutton, says there'll be "relief" that this marks the end of the outright pay freeze (http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-consults-members-on-pay-offer). Even he has to concede though that there will be "disappointment that there is only 1% on the table."

Well.

Quite.

Prices are increasing at a rate of more than 3%, so a pay rise of 1% would concede a further 2% reduction in our standard of living to compound the 16% fall in our real wages/salaries since 2009.

Heather Wakefield, for UNISON, makes the point that "we held out for a better deal" (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=3043) - and that our National Joint Council (NJC) Committee can be expected to consider the offer against the backdrop of our falling living standards.

Our officials do need to wait for our elected lay Committees to make recommendations - but lay activists, speaking for ourselves, need not be so reticent.

The 1% offer - equivalent to the offer which has just been decisively rejected in a consultative ballot by Scottish local government workers - is barely even worth considering.

If we bend the knee, without a fight, and swallow a below-inflation pay rise after three years of pay freeze we will do our members and our union an injustice.

For our members (us!) - we cannot afford a continuing decline in our living standards in a country which (according to the Sunday Times "rich list") now boasts 88 billionaires. Our members are often now failing to make ends meet, and payday loans are increasingly a feature of everyday life. We may, of course, fight for more and fail - but we will only fail our members if we fail even to fight.

For our union - this is an existential crisis for national bargaining (and therefore in the longer term for national trade unions as we have known them for decades). If we cannot mobilise a national fight for a national pay rise that at least beats price inflation after a three year pay freeze then it doesn't matter how high we build our towers on the Euston Road - our relevance as a national organisation is called into question.

As the North West Region motion agreed earlier by the NJC Committee made clear, we are not charging ahead because we want a strike - but we have to recognise that we must respond with strike action to this continuous assault upon our real earnings and standard of living.

A 1% offer deserves 100% rejection.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Back to the future in Kilburn

It really is like going back to the 80s! First Thatcher is all over the news and then along comes a wordy, insightful and - in large part - persuasive analysis co-authored by Stuart Hall (The Kilburn Manifesto - http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/manifesto.html)

Hall, and his fellow authors, argue that neo-liberalism has, over the 40 years since Pinochet's coup led to free market experimentation in Chile, established an (albeit incomplete and contested) global ideological hegemony, which means that the left is failing to turn the current economic crisis into a political challenge to the status quo.

They argue that; "This phase of free-market capitalism has now entered a serious economic crisis from which it cannot easily engineer an exit. But the shape of the crisis remains 'economic'."

This is evident, and provides a firm foundation for the following commentary on our Party; " Labour, the official opposition, is in serious diffculties. It leads in the polls but it is not yet winning hearts and minds. It shuttles between conficting ways forward. It seems afraid of its own (left) shadow, in hock to the old Blairite rump and a belief in the conservatism of the electorate, trapped in parliamentary rituals, mesmerised by electoral politics. It has been rendered speechless by the charge that it opened the door through which the Coalition is triumphantly marching."

There is much to applaud in the insights of the authors of this "Kilburn manifesto" including an accurate identification of our adversaries (the global ruling class) and an analysis of the articulation of class with other structures of oppression which could usefully inform current debates - and which leads to the plausible assertion that "Mobilising resistance requires alliances of a sort which only a multi-focused political strategy can hope to construct.".

If there's one thing I'm uncomfortable with (as I was in the 80s come to think of it) it's the weight given to what I was taught to call "the dominant ideology thesis."

Whilst it's clearly true that "every social settlement, in order to establish itself, is crucially founded on embedding as common sense a whole bundle of beliefs - ideas beyond question, assumptions so deep that the very fact that they are assumptions is only rarely brought to light", the authors are also right to concede that "there are legitimate differences of view about the causal emphasis that should be allotted to ideological, political and material factors." I tend to think it has been our material defeats which have paved the way for their ideological triumphs and that it is to the rebuilding of our movement that we need to pay the greatest attention.

That minor quibble aside, this is a refreshing contribution to the thinking the left needs to do and I look forward to the publication of further chapters.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The choice before UNISON members

As I've mentioned before, I am seeking re-election to UNISON's National Executive Council, alongside a wide and diverse range of socialist comrades.
.
With four exceptions (who have been elected unopposed) we candidates of the left face opponents who, in many cases, would seek to describe themselves as being on the left (or perhaps "the Centre-left"). And, in a sense, they are.

Most UNISON activists are on the left politically when you consider where the centre of political gravity has shifted to over the past generation.

None of the candidates in the NEC elections support austerity or the Coalition Government!

The choice before UNISON members is not a choice about Government policy - but a choice about trade union practice. The choice is about what we want and expect our trade union to do.

Our opponents are, generally, those who can be relied upon, when push comes to shove, to support the leadership of the Union more or less uncritically. The left of which I am a part, however, is a critical, questioning and challenging left, which is - I think - what UNISON needs.

In the two years since the last NEC elections, the most important event was, without doubt, the strike of 30 November 2011. This showed the strengths and weaknesses of UNISON more clearly than any other event in the twenty year existence of the Union.

Our strength was demonstrated in the three month period beginning some ten weeks before the strike, when the General Secretary announced the strike plan to the TUC. We saw the extent of mobilisation which was possible with determined leadership and unity. We also saw rapid growth.

From mid December 2011 however, we saw the grave weakness of UNISON, as we slowly abandoned that strength to strike a series of more or less unsatisfactory deals sector by sector. The dispiriting impact of this clumsy failure has impeded our attempts, up to now, to break the pay freeze.

The choice in these NEC elections is a choice between those who think that we did fine in the pensions dispute and are willing to put a gloss on the conduct of our leadership at the time, and those of us prepared to tell the awkward truth - that we should have fought harder and could have done better.

The more of the candidates of the genuine left who are elected to the UNISON NEC, the stronger will be the critical challenge in future, and the better our Union will perform to defend our interests.

If you are a UNISON activist, please do all you can to maximise the vote for the candidates standing to reclaim our union.

The perfect cure - opposing the far-right in the sun

I've shamefully neglected blogging over the past few days, having been laid up with some sort of bug.



I discovered yesterday that the best aid to recuperation is a trip out in the sunshine, with thousands of other local people, to confront a sorry gaggle of extreme right-wingers implausibly claiming the cross of St George as "their" symbol on the misnamed "March for England" (http://stopmfe.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/brightons-beautiful-anti-fascist-day/)



The dwindling number of self-proclaimed "nationalists" looked if anything uglier and more miserable in the sunshine than they had last year, while the good natured determination of the vast majority of anti-fascist demonstrators made the counter-demonstration a joyful event (thanks very much to the real "EDL" - the English Disco Lovers - http://www.edl.me/).



The anti-fascists looked like the England we live in, we were diverse, tolerant and cheerful in the face of adversity (in the form of perhaps over-zealous policing). The fascists appeared every bit as out of place as they were - their naked hatred can never be made attractive.



I hope they now give up and go away. If they don't, I hope we continue massively to outnumber them on our streets.



And I feel better!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Defend Equality - Save Section 3

Today MPs may overturn a successful Lords amendment in order to repeal Section 3 of the 2006 Equality Act at the final stage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.



Why does this matter?



Well Section 3 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/3) defined the duties of the then newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission as follows;



"The Commission shall exercise its functions under this Part with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which—



(a)people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination,



(b)there is respect for and protection of each individual's human rights,



(c)there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual,



(d)each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and



(e)there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights."



The present Government think this duty too "wide-ranging" and "unrealistic" - but if the objectives of a body set up to promote equality and human rights aren't at least a little aspirational what's the point?



The position of the House of Lords was overwhelmingly supported in the responses to official consultation.



You can contact your MP via the website of PCS, the union which represents the Commission's workforce - http://action.pcs.org.uk/page/speakout/save-section-3



If Section 3 is repealed, can the public sector equality duty, codified in the 2010 Act long survive in its present form?

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) elections - it's that time again!

I've just updated the other page on this blog which has a list of all the candidates standing in the UNISON NEC elections on a platform to "reclaim our union."

UNISON resources cannot be used to support any candidate in the elections although Branches are permitted by the election procedures to notify their members of who they have nominated in the usual way in which they communicate with members (email/newsletter/mailshot etc).

As ballot papers are due out on Monday week (22 April) this coming week is the week in which to get information out. Anyone in London on Tuesday evening who can offer to help us distribute election materials in London please come along to the Cock Tavern 23 Phoenix Road NW1 from 6pm

Oh - and as I have said before - if you're a London UNISON member then please vote for me! (I'll blog a proper request for support later).

.

 

An urgent appeal from UNISON to safety representatives (and all activists)

In March, UNISON was successful in influencing the House of Lords decision to remove clause 62 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill. This clause would have made it harder for an employee to claim compensation for injuries sustained at work.
 
However, the amendments by the House of Lords will now be considered by the House of Commons on 16 April 2013. The House of Commons could decide to ignore the House of Lords' recommendation and instead reinsert clause 62 and press on regardless.
 
To ensure that the House of Commons do not ignore the House of Lords' recommendations, write to your MP and tell them why you want them to vote to remove clause 62 from the ERR Bill.

http://www.writetothem.com/
 
To write to your MP, click on the above link, enter your post code, and select your MP. You can copy and paste text from UNISON's model email to help you to write your own email about why your MP should vote to remove clause 62 of the ERR Bill.

Here is the text of the model email;

I am writing to you in my capacity of a Safety Representative at my workplace .............
The House of Commons is due on the 16 October to consider the House of Lords decision to remove clause of 62 of Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which the government inserted into the Bill at the Commons Report stage on 16th October 2012. This clause had it become law would have amended Section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and removed the ability of an employee to enforce a civil claim for workplace injury on the grounds of a breach of workplace regulations.
Contrary to what the government claims, clause 62 went far beyond what Professor Lofstedt recommended in his report "Reclaiming health and safety". No review has been undertaken. Also by amending section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act as clause 62 proposed, the change would apply all civil cases involving breaches of workplace regulations, not just those regulations where strict liability applies. This would mean that workers would have to rely on proving negligence on the part of the employer, and would lead to claims being settled for substantially less than their true value, because of course the insurers, representing employers, would be in a much better position to afford the cost of fighting and losing such a case. The government claimed this change would reduce costly litigious action. Nothing could be more far from the truth as employers and their insurers would be encouraged to mount spurious defences for breaches of regulations, where in the past they would have settled out of court.
Clause 62 was only introduced to the Commons at Report Stage after it had already gone through the Committee Stage. This means that this highly contentious and far reaching amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act has not been subject to the scrutiny by the Commons that is normally associated with such changes. However it has been scrutinised by the Lords and found wanting.
I therefore ask that the Commons listens to the Lord and removes part 5: section 62: Parts 1-11 from the bill on the basis that the government should review and consult on the issue of strict liability in an open and transparent manner, inviting submissions from all affected parties."

Please act on this if you can.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

TUC General Secretary tells it like it is about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher

The first female General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress has some fine words about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher (http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/clearing-up-margaret-thatchers-mess);



"she assumed no responsibility to minimise social disruption or to create new jobs and industries"



"The family silver was squandered on bribing voters rather than modernising the economy"



"The 70s was Britain's most equal decade. The jobs that went during the 80s tended to be good, skilled jobs, delivering decent incomes and some security. She failed to replace those jobs with well-paid equivalents. Demonising unions and stripping the great mass of private-sector workers of a voice and power in the workplace is still the root of the great living standards crisis that saw the share of wealth going to wages slide long before Lehman Brothers failed"



"The financial crash of 2008 was a direct result of the policies Thatcher championed. The dominance of finance in the economy and the failure of bank regulation flowed from her belief that markets should always be left to themselves"



It is good to see the General Secretary of the TUC refuses to be cowed into sycophancy by the rabid response to criticism of a divisive and reactionary Prime Minister.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Glenda Jackson, MP speaks truth to power in Parliament about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-mps-pay-tribute-live

When I made my maiden speech a little over two decades ago, Margaret Thatcher had been elevated to the other place but Thatcherism was still wreaking, as it had wreaked for the previous decade, the most heinous, social, economic and spiritual damage upon this country, upon my constituency and my constituents.

Our local hospitals were running on empty. Patients were staying on trolleys and in corridors. I tremble to think what the death rate for pensioners would have been this winter if that version of Thatcherism had been fully up and running this year.

Our schools, parents, teachers, governors, even pupils, seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising in order to be able to provide basic materials, such as paper and pencils. The plaster on our classroom walls was kept in place by pupils artwork and miles and miles of sellotape. Our school libraries were dominated by empty shelves, very few books, and those books that were there were being held together by ubiquitious sellotape and offcuts from teachers' wallpaper used to bind those volumes so that they could at least hang together.

But by far the most dramatic and heinous demonstration of Thatcherism was certainly not only in London, but across the whole country in metropolitan areas, where every single shop doorway, every single night, became the bedroom, the living room, the bathroom for the homeless. They grew in their thousands. And many of those homeless people had been thrown out onto the streets from the closure of the long-term mental hospitals. We were told it was going to be called Care in the Community. What in effect it was was no care at all in the community.

I was interested to hear about Baroness Thatcher's willingness to invite those who have nowhere to go for Christmas. It's a pity she did not start building more and more social houses after she entered into the right to buy, so perhaps there would have been fewer homeless people than there were. As a friend of mine said, during her era London became a city Hogarth would have recognise. And indeed he would.

But the basis to Thatcherism - and this is where I come to the spiritual part of what I regard as the desperate, desperately wrong track that Thatcherism took this country into - was that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was in fact a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward ...

What concerns me is that I'm beginning to see possibly the re-emergence of that total traducing of what I regard as being the basis of the spiritual nature of this country, where we do care about society, where we do believe in communities, where we do not leave people to walk by on the other side. That is not happening now. And if we go back to the heyday of that era I think we will see replicated again the extraordinary human damage that we as a nation have suffered from.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Former UNISON President, Dave Anderson MP explains to Parliament how Thatcher is viewed in former mining communities

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-mps-pay-tribute-live



Lady Thatcher came to power promising to bring harmony, he says. But, in the mining communities, she achieved the opposite.



The British coal industry was deemed uneconomic because it had high safety standards, he says.



After the pit closed in his community the burglary rate went up, he says. He says people discovered what it was like to be burgled by the child of a friend.



That is why mining communities feel so strongly about Thatcher, he says.



A lot has been said over the last 48 hours of the harsh nature of some of the responses to the news of Mrs Thatcher's death. This House needs to understand the reason for that, because before, during and ever since the attack on the coal industry, and the people in it, the government ignored the impact of that policy ... Mrs Thatcher's lack of empathy, her intransigence, her failure to see the other side, her refusal to even look at the other side has left [mining communities] bitter and resentful ... Her accusation that the enemy within was in the mining areas of this country still rankles with with people.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Speaking ill of the dead

We should all be grateful to Glenn Greenwald for expressing in an admirably concise way why we should not be compelled to apply the rule that one does not speak ill of the dead in the cases of political leaders generally and Margaret Thatcher in particular (http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette).

Anyone with a spark of humanity who came of age under that brutal Government, which largely opened the continuing assault upon our class and our society hated that Government for what it was doing.

And we hated the Prime Minister who personified that Government.

And we still do.

Thatcher's death is an entirely legitimate cause for celebration for millions of decent people - but it is Thatcherism that we need to finish off.

We live in a country which is (on average) materially wealthier than it was thirty four years ago when Thatcher came to power, but it is in many ways poorer.

The raising up of greed as a socially acceptable motivation, the looting of commonly owned assets to enrich a tiny minority and the ruthless and continuing disempowerment of all possible centres of popular opposition have combined to create a nation into which I am almost ashamed to have brought children.

For Labour Party members we bear the additional shame of political responsibility for a Government which, in far too many ways, continued her poisonous legacy of privatisation at home and imperialism overseas, thereby paving the way for the return to power of Thatcher's true heirs.

I am with all those who are raising a glass this evening and trying to remember the lyrics to "Tramp the Dirt Down" - but particularly if tomorrow they will be waking up committed to the fight to bury Thatcherism alongside Thatcher.

As the establishment mourn their heroine we should remember, and draw inspiration from, all those who opposed her. The Greenham Common Women, the Miners and their supporters, the opponents of Section 28 and the much derided "loony left" in local government should all be rescued from what EP Thompson called "the enormous condescension of posterity" and rehabilitated as examples to those of us committed to carrying on their struggles.

I make no apology for smiling at the news of Thatcher's death. Now let's work to bury her legacy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The future of our unions is in our branches

What matters is what matters materially.



Within our trade unions, the allocation of our limited resources is always a vital question.



Over the decades of my union activity I have witnessed a centralisation of power and resources in our union.



At the same time there has been a decentralisation (indeed, a fragmentation) of bargaining and representation.



So, as we have empowered our national (and regional) officials so they have become increasingly irrelevant to our members.



To be brutally frank, there are increasingly strong grounds to question what it is, exactly, that our national trade unions are "for". National pay "bargaining" has delivered nothing of substance for several years. Whether it ever will is now an open question.



Equally, as our Regional structures have become less and less likely to facilitate industrial or legal action, so they have drifted away from mattering to our members.



At the same time, wherever locally our unions can bring together courage, competence and good fortune, we are still able to deliver for our members (or, rather, to enable them to use their trade unionism to deliver for themselves).



I draw two lessons from this state of affairs.



First, we need to raise our game nationally. Our priority in UNISON ought not to be our recruitment campaign but rather our pay campaign. UNISON can still be the Union we wanted when we made it twenty years ago. If we want to grow we must fight.



Secondly, we have to be serious about changing our Union to meet changing circumstances. We have to understand that the future of our Union is not in a prestigious HQ, nor in our Regional offices.



A twenty first century trade union will live or die in our branches - and that is where we need to focus our attention and resources.



Those who draw from this that there is a need to amend Motion 106 to UNISON National Delegate Conference win the prize for paying attention...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with the long weekend of action

Members of our sister union, PCS, are variously taking half day and one day strikes today and Monday following the civil service wide budget day strike (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/55F34F0B-1DA3-4C01-9F000054956E8DEF).



Given the intransigence and hostility of this Government, civil servants are clearly left with no option other than to resist by whatever means are available to defend their jobs, pay and pensions.



The same does not automatically apply on every issue for all of us. In some local authorities, for example, we continue to have a dialogue with our employers even through the deepest and most damaging cuts.



However, all we are achieving is, at best, modest damage limitation (and in a frighteningly large number of cases local authority employers have successfully attacked conditions of service as well as jobs).



The perpetrators of the attacks upon public service workers (and what's left of our Welfare State) can be found at numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street. To confront these villains we need co-ordinated national action not just across one sector, but across the whole movement.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Class - you've either got it or you haven't?

According to the BBC I am part of the established middle class (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058). I must tell the bank - maybe they'll increase my overdraft!

More to the point though, this "new" approach to a superficial definition of "class" doesn't actually assist our understanding of society. Class isn't a category, it's the expression of a social relation of (in a capitalist society) exploitation and struggle. (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Chapter%201%20--%20Wright%20Jan%202004.pdf)

An obsession with class as a category is an obvious manifestation of individualism as an ideology. It starts with the individual's question "what am I?" Class then becomes a badge worn by an individual and loses - as a concept - the explanatory power which it could (and does) have to help understand, and therefore be able to change, this hideously unjust society.

Essentially, those who sell our labour (or "labour power" to be precise) in order to live are workers. Those who live off the labour of others are bosses (capitalists to be precise). These two groups exist in an exploitative relationship, which is a class relationship.

There are, of course, those who are (at a particular point in time) in "contradictory class locations" between these two extremes, as well as those (such as the self-employed, small shopkeepers and students) who are permanently or temporarily outside this fundamental class relationship. Also, those of us who work in the public sector are workers employed by the state (on behalf of the capitalist class as a whole, rather than any individual capitalist).

However, the exploitative relationship between workers and bosses in a capitalist society is of fundamental importance in shaping both our society and the opportunities which exist to transform it.

A compelling vindication of this (Marxist) understanding of class is that, in every case where capitalist social relations have established themselves, workers have sought to form trade unions in order to express and defend our class interests as workers in a capitalist society (and these unions either do, or aspire to, organise all the BBC's "classes" except "the elite").

That's why the most important news about "class" in the last couple of days relates not to the BBC survey but to the TUC consideration of the "practicalities" of a General Strike (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22029895).

The politics of our Tory Coalition Government, which are the UK expression of a global ruling class offensive, are the politics of naked class war. This week, millionaires got a tax cut funded in part by benefit changes which threaten people with the loss of their homes if they have a spare bedroom.

If you "get" class then you "get" that this is a very real struggle in which we have to join. From the "established middle class" to the "precariat" workers need to be united against these attacks on our interests. This does require a labour movement led by people willing to show almost reckless courage.

Which reminds me that I need to blog about the UNISON NEC elections...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

In spring a UNISON activist's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of priorities for UNISON Conference

Tennyson claimed that "In spring, a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love" (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174629).
This was clearly reactionary propoganda intended to distract us from the important business of prioritising motions for debate at UNISON's National Delegate Conference. 113 motions have thus far made it on to the Preliminary Agenda for our Conference in Liverpool in June (together with the eighteen Rule Amendments which will adorn our Thursday afternoon). 52 motions and three Rule Amendments fell at the first hurdle, having been ruled out of order by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) (though one or two may come back after an appeal). Not all of these motions will get debated though. This will depend upon the prioritisation process which is now upon us. I have sought to explain the process here before (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2008/03/prioritising-unison-conference.html?m=1) and won't repeat the explanation, both of the process and how (I believe) activists should engage with it, which I set out on that link. Though I will repeat the point that intelligent prioritisation is not so much about picking what are, on the face of it, the "most important issues" as about ensuring that other important issues don't slip off our agenda. So, here are some purely personal thoughts and suggestions about motions which I think are worthy of support in the prioritisation process. I will preface these suggestions with an observation about motions on branch funding. This is an important topic. Unless SOC depart from their past practice on such matters, they will automatically timetable the NEC motion 106, since it responds to a previous Conference instruction to the NEC. This motion will then (almost inevitably)be counterposed (by SOC, in a decision on "consequences") to motions 107, 108, 112 and 113 (bearing in mind the wording of the second and third paragraphs of motion 106), so that those other motions will only be debated if 106 falls. I think this means that the debate around branch funding will take place around Motion 106 and any amendments thereto which make it on to the Conference agenda - and that we can therefore put this to one side when considering Conference priorities. If other comrades think I've got that wrong I'd like to know, as it is vital that we restructure our trade union to cope with the fragmentation of public services which our current centralised structure has failed to prevent. This will be what happens to UNISON over the next decade and our national Centre will be a much smaller and more modest creature a decade from now. There are many motions which socialists might want to prioritise (Motion 47 for example is a thing of beauty and therefore a joy forever). However, we have to focus on a very few - and these are a dozen of my personal suggestions; Motion 42 Councillors Against the Cuts (as advertised on this blog) Motion 111 Election of Paid Officers (ditto) Motion 104 General Strike (because we need to continue the debate started at last year's TUC) Motion 64 Defending Trade Union Facility Time (because we have to) Motion 96 Opposing the Welfare Reform Act, Council Tax and Other Benefit Changes (an important addition to a vital debate) Motion 9 Democracy in Unison and the Right to Campaign in Ballots (a motion to rebut control freaks) Motion 86 Defending our Reproductive and Sexual Rights (does what it says on the tin) Motion 84 Defeating the English Defence League (ditto) Motion 93 Disabled People Against the Cuts (an important affirmation of support for a key campaigning group) Motion 36 National Action to Defend our Health Service (because we need it) Motion 38 Demise of the State Education System (because we need to fight it) Motion 78 Solidarity with South African Workers (because it's obvious) I'd be interested to know what other comrades think about this. As a rule, just as the left punches above its weight at Conference, we fail to punch our weight in the prioritisation process. (The sedge has withered at the lake, and no birds sing...)
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Don't do it Avril!

I'm upset at the news that leading Labour anti-cuts Councillor, Avril Poisson, is to defect to TUSC. I can't say any more now. Will post further later.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Ok! Not the best of April Fools I know - but what can you do on a 1 April when the Government are dismantling the welfare state whilst rewarding millionaires and the priority of at least some in the Labour Party is to affirm their support from Trident nuclear submarines...?

Sussex University is a disgrace

Let me quickly qualify that.

The people who work at Sussex University are not a disgrace (a few senior managers excepted).

The students who study at Sussex University are not a disgrace.

In particular, the students who have staged a long running occupation against privatisation are not only not a disgrace, they are a fine example to us all.

It is, however, disgraceful that the overpaid bureaucrats who squat above the worthwhile endeavour of the students and staff teaching and studying in the Sussex countryside opposite the Amex Stadium have spent public money litigating to evict the occupiers (http://www.badgeronline.co.uk/2013/03/high-court-eviction/).

As a taxpayer and Brightonian I want to say that this abusive use of public money to silence legitimate dissent is not done in my name.

As a local lad I want to say that the senior managers of Sussex University who wasted our money on this reactionary frolic deserve forever to be unwelcome in our town. I suggest they go and live somewhere where their reactionary views will be accepted.

The Eighteenth Century suggests itself.

As a socialist and a trade unionist I want to say that the students who have carried out the occupation are an inspiration - and that every trade unionist who has supported them can be proud (whilst others should feel otherwise).

As a Labour Party member I want to record that local Labour Party members supported the occupation - and I want to demand that Labour's leadership pledges to reverse privatisation when we win the next General Election.

The plague of privatisation of our public services is striking us down throughout the public sector. The exemplary resistance of the Sussex students stands as a beacon of resistance for which we should all be grateful.

The senior management of Sussex University may be a disgrace - but some of their students are a great and positive example. I know that the Sussex occupation has already provided many labour movement activists with inspiration.

All true trade unionists will have been on the side of the occupiers. Others may have done otherwise.

So, maybe Sussex University is not a disgrace. Perhaps it is just that there are some disgraceful people in senior positions.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Defend Cllr Kevin Bennett – no victimisation of councillors who oppose cuts

This post is reposted from Councillors Against the Cuts (http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/2013/03/27/defend-cllr-kevin-bennett-no-victimisation-of-councillors-who-oppose-cuts/).



"We have just heard that Cllr Kevin Bennett of Warrington Council and UNITE will face a proposal from the Labour whips of Warrington Labour Group that he is suspended from the Labour Group.



Unite the Union have pledged their full support for Kevin and they are promising a lobby at the Town Hall at the time of the hearing.



It would be good if as many opponents of the cuts in the area could join this lobby organised by Unite.



The hearing of the Warrington Labour Group will be on Thursday 4th April, at the Warrington Town Hall, Sankey Street, Warrington, Cheshire. The lobby will start at 6pm in advance of the hearing which is scheduled to start at 6:30pm.



It was right for 44 MPs to rebel last week against the whips on the issue of Workfare. It is right for councillors who oppose cuts. Messages  of support can be sent to councillorsagainstcuts@gmail.com and will be relayed to Kevin.



No victimisation of councillors who oppose cuts. Solidarity with Councillor Kevin Bennett."



I would only add that all trade unions - and particularly those of us organising in local government - should defend the Councillors prepared to vote against the cuts which we oppose.



UNISON members can of course do our bit by prioritising for debate Motion 42 to our National Delegate Conference.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

"Filled with horror" at local government cuts? Bring the debate about an alternative to UNISON Conference

Today's news report on local government spending cuts tells local government workers what we already know (http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/25/council-cuts-local-government-knees).



When Council Leaders go on the record to say that the budget cuts which they will be implementing "fill them with horror" you know that things are bad.



But you also have to ask the obvious question - "why are you doing it?" It wasn't the users (or the staff) of our Day Centres or Libraries who brought the global economy to its knees and forced us to bail out the banks.



Why should decent, social democratic local politicians who got involved to make a positive difference for local communities now find their role is to be the transmission belt whereby the Coalition Government can impose the burden of the financial crisis upon some of the most vulnerable?



I can't answer for those who are prepared to do things which "fill them with horror" but I would hazard a guess that what's missing, in the Labour Party and the wider movement is confidence that there is an alternative strategy for a progressive local authority other than to deliver savings to meet cuts in central government funding (whilst trying to minimise the damage).



This is why the challenge posed by "Councillors Against the Cuts" (http://councillorsagainstcuts.org/) is so important. By putting forward an alternative, Councillors Against Cuts open up space for the debate which needs to take place about Labour's strategy for local government in the remainder of this Parliament (and beyond).



This, in turn, is why UNISON activists should campaign to prioritise Motion 42 (Councillors Against Cuts) for debate at UNISON National Delegate Conference. The Conference doesn't take place until June - but Regions are being consulted on their priorities by the Standing Orders Committee now (and should in turn be consulting branches).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A modest but significant victory for workers

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in the case of UNISON v Capita (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=3015) is very welcome - particularly to your blogger, who was a witness for UNISON in the case.

The tribunal judge upheld our complaint that the employer had failed to provide information about agency workers as required by law in a collective redundancy situation. He went on to make a "protective award" of 45 days pay in respect of the 30 workers who ended up being made redundant when Capita moved Lambeth Council's caller centre to Southampton.

The eventual value of this award isn't as important as the clarity of the decision itself. Of course it may be appealed (as I understand the earlier decision against Barnet Council may have been) but it is a robust and well argued decision, so I'll go out on a limb and say I expect it to stand - particularly in relation to its finding on liability.

Employment Judge Baron notes that employers may not like subsections (g), (h) and (i) of subsection 4 of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which were introduced, with effect from October 2011, by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 - but they are the law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/93/schedule/2/paragraph/4/made).

In any collective redundancy situation (and also, as a result of a similar amendment to TUPE) in any transfer situation, the employer must disclose to the trade union details of all their agency workers. Critically, Employment Judge Baron observes that - whereas at the time Capita made the mistake in this case the legislation was fairly new - now "there can be no excuse" for employers who fail to maintain a central list of agency workers so as to be able to meet their legal duties in the event of a future collective redundancy consultation.

All activists can draw this tribunal decision to the attention of employers in order to put them on notice of the requirement to provide agency worker information in the event of a collective redundancy or transfer consultation (of course you can also try to get them to share the information regularly and routinely in any case!)

If the employers subsequently fail to comply with the law in this regard, the fact that the union has put them on notice of their obligation should help to persuade a tribunal to award closer to the maximum "protective award" of 90 days' pay.

This too can be pointed out to employers to force from them information about their use of agency workers (which we can then use to try to avert redundancies, both directly - by substituting redundant employees for agency workers - and, more importantly, indirectly, by putting pressure on employers to limit their use of agency staff).

Trade unionists ought not, of course, to be opposed to agency workers (and we are not) - but we are opposed to the deliberate segmentation of the labour market by employers seeking to "divide and rule" between a "flexible" periphery of insecure workers and a (slightly!) more secure "core" workforce. In essence, we should - and do - campaign for all workers to have the rights of employees.

However, at a time of job losses we rightly seek to minimise the use of agency workers where this will, in general or in particular, reduce the risk of redundancies. This tribunal decision is a small but important asset to us in that endeavour.

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will understand that I am cheerful about this tribunal decision as I have been banging on about the subject for some time (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/section-188-and-agency-workers.html?m=1).

If any trade unionist would like a copy of the tribunal decision, let me know.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

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