Model motion on the Labour-union link?

I'm more used to drafting motions for use within my trade union than the Labour Party, so would welcome comments on the competence or usefulness of the following motion (or someone telling me where a far better motion is already available online);

The Collins Review and the Party's relationship with the trade unions

This branch remembers that the Labour Party was founded as an alliance between trade unions and socialist organisations to provide a political voice for working people.

We believe that Labour's continuing relationship with three million trade unionists who are affiliated members of our Party helps to root our Party in our communities and workplaces. It is a relationship which has seen our Party through its greatest crises and to our greatest triumphs.

We want our Party to continue to be a Party funded primarily by millions rather than by millionaires. We recognise that trade unions are collective organisations of working people, and understand that the relationship between the unions and the Party, locally and nationally should be on the basis of collective affiliation.

We note that Ray Collins is currently leading a review of the Party's relationship with the trade unions at the request of the Party Leader.

We would support positive measures to strengthen and improve the relationship between the Party and the unions, for example by encouraging the greater democratic engagement of ordinary trade unionists in union and Party structures, or by developing the understanding of the nature and purpose of trade unionism among Party members who lack experience of trade unionism. We call upon all individual Party members to join, and become actively involved in, an appropriate trade union.

We oppose any and all suggestions that would weaken or undermine the relationship between the Party and the trade unions based upon collective affiliation. We call upon the NEC to ensure that any proposals for change reflect the views expressed in this motion.

We resolve to submit this motion to Ray Collins, and to the CLP for consideration of the motion (excluding this paragraph) as a contemporary resolution to Party Conference.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Attack on union link puts democracy at risk

Over two centuries working people have fought for our rights in the workplace and wider society.

Among our victories have been those of the Chartists and the Suffragettes (and Suffragists) who won us the franchise.

The right to choose who governs us is an essential element of democracy. Our rulers have never been comfortable with this and are not now.

For all the ideological bullshit about "Western democracy" (which would be, to paraphrase Ghandi, a good idea) capitalism sits most uncomfortably with popular democracy if voters can elect people with real power over the market economy. The "ideal type" of the relationship between capitalism and democracy is far more Chile 1973 than Britain 1945.

Capitalism - as an economic system - is invariably contrary to the interests of the majority of the population and perpetuating it requires impressive intellectual athletics from those whose role it is to sell a lie to workers (the most dedicated of whom these days brand themselves as "Progress" - or "Sainsbury's").

The emergence - more than a century ago - of a social democratic political party linked organically to the trade unions (the Labour Party) posed a continuing, unavoidable challenge to the hegemony of the idea that there was no alternative to capitalism as a way of ordering our lives.

The history of the Labour Party is the tale of how the articulation of an alternative to capitalism was - and continues to be - avoided, marginalised, ridiculed and rejected. However, for as long as the Labour Party was - or appeared to be - a voice for organised labour (because of our collective affiliation to the Party) then the question of capitalism was always contested - as Labour continued to appear as an oppositional voice.

That is what is now at issue.

Ed Miliband seeks to undermine collective trade union affiliation to Labour, leaning upon half understanding of a poor analysis of our history to make proposals which jeopardise our future.

We have declining turnout in elections, and declining support for the two main parties, because there is less to differentiate these two parties in a world lacking both a global alternative to capitalism and a viable domestic alternative to neoliberalism. In the past there was mass support for Labour as an alternative to the world as it is. This support may often have been misplaced, but it was real.

If Miliband succeeds in transforming the Labour Party into an entity which only ever quibbles with the detail of the existing social order, by whose beneficiaries it is funded, he will have blocked the road back to that mass support.

And in that case the purpose of the franchise will have been frustrated and representative democracy will continue its long slide into irrelevance.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Limit of Compensatory Award) Order 2013

This is the order which is imposing a dual cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal - as well as the global cap of £74,200, each individual faces a cap equivalent to their own annual salary. So with the exception of a few people I sit across tables from, and fewer who sit at top tables, everyone I know faces a lower cap.



The Government have introduced this new lower limit only out of kindness of course. The Minister, Jo Swinson explained to MPs; "the limit, which now stands at £74,200, has moved far in excess of the average award, which has been around £5,000 for the past seven years. The Government take the view that the disparity has created unrealistic perceptions about the likely level of award that can be expected at tribunal. " (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmgeneral/deleg5/130709/130709s01.htm).



How kind of them to save us all from unrealistic perceptions! If only that was all they had been doing with our employment rights.



Labour MP Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) summed it up well; "Statutory instruments in the past 18 months have moved the qualification period from one year to two years, and collective redundancy has been moved from 90 days to 45 days. We have also had the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which spawned the order. Settlement agreements, ACAS early conciliation and the introduction of fees have all been put in place. Someone now has to go around that whole system, managing to navigate the protected and without prejudice conversations and the conciliation service at ACAS, and be able to afford the £1,250 to get into the employment tribunal system, but, even when justice is being delivered, people are unable to claim the compensation that they might deserve, because the draft statutory instrument we are considering restricts it to a year's salary or £74,200. "



Just at the point at which more and more workers have need of our employment rights, the Government is undermining them. These attacks demand a political and an industrial response.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Learn from the teachers - support NUT and NASUWT

The two largest teachers' unions have confirmed arrangements for the next phase of their industrial action (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/18841).



This will include;

continuation of the current action short of strike action instructions;

further national rallies in September;

a second phase of rolling national strike action in the week beginning 30 September;

a third phase of rolling national strike action in the week beginning 14 October; and

a one-day, all-out national strike before the end of the Autumn term.



The approach of the teachers' unions is to co-ordinate not only between unions, but also to take action in connection with more than one dispute at the same time.



This unusual approach (explicitly repudiated by UNISON's Industrial Action Committee after the experience of July 2002) corresponds to the experience of all public service workers, for whom job cuts, the pay freeze, and the worsening of our pensions are all part of the same experience.



It is precisely the approach to "broadening the battle lines" which we should have adopted early last year. The least we can now do is all within our power to lend support.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Fight the privatisation of the post - support the CWU

Our economy is in the doldrums as capitalist firms hoard cash rather than invest it, not seeing opportunities for profit.



One of the Government's remedies for this state of affairs (rather than investing in the economy to get it moving) is to find ways to open up to the profit motive areas of economic life not previously driven by this imperative - notably the Royal Mail.



And that's why the CWU campaign against Royal Mail privatisation is so significant (http://www.cwu.org/save-our-royal-mail.html). This is a privatisation which could still be scuppered (particularly if Labour pledged renationalisation on return to office in 2015). If you've not already done so, sign the online petition now (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/vince-cable-save-our-royal-mail).



The CWU are absolutely right not only to mount a wide-ranging political campaign against privatisation but also to prepare for industrial action to protect members' terms and conditions (http://www.cwu.org/cwu-invites-government-to-work-together-for-new-solution-on-royal-mail-or-face-strike-action.html).



The sort of spivs and sharks who aim to get their share of privatised public services invariably see "shareholder value" in attacking pay and conditions which have been fought for and won over decades. They have to be sent a clear message - not only that CWU members will resist attempts to profit at their expense, but also that the wider labour and trade union movement will stand behind the postal workers to fight both privatisation and the consequences of privatisation, and to demand that an incoming Labour Government returns the post to the public sector.



Although, as a republican, I wouldn't go to the wire about the name...



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The fight for public sector pensions continues - support the FBU

The public service pensions disputes of 2011/12 saw the acceptance or imposition of detrimental changes to pension funds for local government and health workers, teachers and civil servants, albeit the damage was limited by the campaign in opposition which included - on 30 November 2011, the largest strike seen in this country for decades.



One group of public service workers were split off from this dispute, however, as the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and the Government held longer running talks about the separate pension fund for firefighters. Those talks appear now to have reached an impasse and the FBU are to ballot their members for action (http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=6819).



The partial retreat by London Mayor, Boris Johnson, on proposals for the closure of fire stations (http://www.brixtonblog.com/clapham-fire-station-saved-following-community-campaign/14173) demonstrates the potential political power of community and trade union mobilisation to defend the fire service.



The thousands who have been mobilised to defend fire stations are an obvious constituency to support a fight for fair pensions for firefighters. - and the FBU should call for support from all those of us ready to provide it.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Ed Miliband and the union link - the good(?) reason and the real reason

I spent yesterday working for Labour's victory in the Hanover and Elm Grove by election for Brighton and Hove Council, along with something like 80 other Party members and staff from across the City and wider Region.

In the course of traipsing up and down some very steep roads (which readers who have only been to Brighton for Conferences will probably not have experienced) I had an interesting chat with a Labour MP close to the recently aborted Party funding negotiations who explained the Party leadership's thinking leading up to Ed Miliband's speech this week (which he supported).

An important factor in the timing was that the Party funding talks had been sabotaged by the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Labour Leader wanted to be in a position to go on the offensive against the Tories on this issue (as anyone who has seen this week's Prime Minister's Question Time would have to acknowledge that he did reasonably effectively).

The leadership's view was that they were hamstrung in launching such an attack by (in their view) the public perception that there was little difference between millionaires' making big donations for favours and Trade Union General Secretaries seeking policy changes in return for affiliation fees and donations (for example in the "Warwick" talks under the last Government).

When I countered that there had only been rows in the "Warwick" process because the Party leadership had moved so far away from the values of the movement of which it was supposed to be part, it was put to me that trade unions could no longer meaningfully claim to speak on behalf of a working class, the majority of whom were outside its ranks. Further, it was argued, most workers these days had no dealings with trade unions in their everyday lives, as we are largely restricted to the public sector and to parts of the private sector which were themselves formerly in the public sector.

I can see, how, on this basis, politicians who see their fundamental purpose as being to govern "in the national interest" can come to the conclusion that, as a result of the decline of trade union presence, our movement no longer has a claim to be any more than one (albeit important) "vested interest."

However, if you examine the empirical foundations upon which these conclusions are based, it turns out that the whole basis of this analysis is flawed.

First, it just isn't true that "most" workers no longer have dealings with trade unions in their everyday lives. Of course we are smaller, weaker and less relevant than we were a generation ago - but, according to the latest Workplace Employee Relations Survey (about which I blogged ad nauseam earlier in the year) 52% of employees work in workplaces where there is at least one union member and 46% work in a workplace with a recognised trade union.

Bearing in mind that there is a considerable degree of turnover in the labour market, even during a recession, many of the 54% of employees who currently work at a workplace where there is no trade union recognition, will have in the past worked in one of the 46% of workplaces with such recognition, or will do in the future.

It's not fanciful to assume therefore that a clear majority of employed adults of working age have experience of working in a workplace with trade union recognition - which means that unions will have played a role in bargaining over their pay, leave, sick pay, health and safety etc.

We don't have the presence, in workplaces and the wider society, that we had in (say) 1979 - but we are a long way from being as absent and irrelevant as the Leader of the "Opposition" appears to believe.

Taking a long view also puts declining trade union density (the proportion of employees who are members of a trade union) into some sort of perspective, particularly in terms of its meaning for the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party.

Again it is true that trade union density has slumped catastrophically since it peaked a generation ago, and now hovers around the 26% mark across the economy as a whole. However, that is precisely the level to which trade union density had fallen in 1929 (after the defeats of the 1920s) and from which it continued to fall until slowly clawing its way back to the 26% mark in 1936.

So, in 1931, when the trade unions stood by the Party after it was betrayed by its Leader, when no one thought to question a relationship which gave the unions far greater formal power than we have eighty years on, trade union density was lower than it is now.

Therefore, just as Ed Miliband is wrong to think that trade unions fail to touch the lives of most working people in 2013, he fails to see that we are now still more numerous than we were at vital moments in the Party's history.

What has changed about our movement since the 30s is not trade union density or presence, but the gender and sectoral composition of our movement. Our strength is not now in (predominantly male) manufacturing (which in any case employs far fewer than it did then) but in (far more feminised) public services (which employ more now precisely because of the past achievements of our movement).

On the one hand, this makes our policies and demands less (not more) sectional in nature, because the protection and improvement of public services is a shared interest of "producers" and "consumers" (or citizens).

On the other hand, in a period in which a capitalist crisis is being resolved through savage cuts and privatisation, the trade unions appear (to all those who refuse to see beyond the existing order of things) as a major obstacle to the "common sense of the age" (that budgets must balance and the private sector knows best).

It must be much easier for a Labour leader to sleep at night as he plans to implement Tory spending plans if elected if he can (in his own mind) dismiss the cries of the trade unions on behalf of all working people as no more than the "special pleading" of a "vested interest" contrary to the "national interest" - this is a problem which has confronted every Labour leader and which has generally been resolved by them in the same way. (Of course, socialists know - or ought to know - that there is not and never has been any such thing as a "national interest" and that this is always a political construct designed, in the final analysis, to deliver for the rulers against the ruled).

In fact, Ed Miliband has been captured by another small and pernicious "vested interest" of which he himself is an expression. It is clear that his game plan is to secure state funding for political parties. This is very much in the interests of lifelong career politicians, and of the employees of political parties - indeed (in the UK) of all those who live their lives within the "Westminster bubble".

Freed from the pesky business of accountability to the organised working class, "One Nation Labour" can get on with the business of fitting our economy and society to the needs of global capital (albeit softening the edges) unencumbered by anything that would interfere with the wisdom of those who live within the bubble.

Just as everyone always has two reasons for what they do - the "good reason" and the "real reason" - so Ed Miliband has a (more or less) high minded justification for seeking to break the union link which conceals (perhaps even from himself) the real reason.

Or, to paraphrase Marx "it is not a matter of what this or that Miliband brother pictures as his goal, it is a matter of what that Miliband brother is in actuality and what, as a result of this being, he will historically be compelled to do."

Unless we can stop him.


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The history of UNISON's two section political fund

Red Pepper asked me to explain UNISON's political fund arrangements for the uninitiated following Ed Miliband's reference to them in questions after his speech yesterday (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/ed-miliband-praises-unisons-labour-fund-opt-in-but-its-not-that-simple/). I hope that regular readers (not all of whom share all my views) will feel that I did a reasonably good factual job.

In that post I did say "this isn't the time or place for a detailed history of the UNISON arrangements and their consequences" - and indeed that wasn't.

But this might be. And I should declare an interest, in that my Labour Link NEC colleagues decided once again this month not to elect me to the Labour Link Committee...

Prior to the creation of UNISON twenty years ago, two of the three
"former partner unions" were Labour affiliates, whereas NALGO (which
brought with it the majority of members to the new Union) had voted
down proposals to affiliate some years previously.

NUPE and COHSE did not want merger to disaffiliate them, but NALGO did
not expect its members to vote for a merger if this meant an affiliation which they had rejected. The negotiators hit upon the "fix" of two political funds, although (following discussion with the
Certification Officer who oversees trade union mergers) it became clear that the law only allows a trade union to have one political fund, and so the new Union was established with one fund, which had
two sections.

Initially the two sections of the Political Fund were known as the "Former NUPE/COHSE Fund" and the "Former NALGO Fund" and members remained in their former fund (with new members joining the appropriate section for the branch they joined). After two years, this interim period came to an end and members were permitted to switch between the two sections, which became known as the "General Political Fund" (GPF) and the "Affiliated Political Fund" (APF) (now known as "UNISON Labour Link"). Indeed members can pay into both sections of the fund if they make a small additional contribution.

The APF developed its own autonomous structures within UNISON as set out in the initial Rule Book. Attempts by opponents of Labour affiliation to force a debate on affiliation within UNISON were
frustrated in court by the design of the UNISON Rule Book (http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/media/DocumentLibrary/Decisions/Decision_D-4-5.01_December_2000.pdf?ext=.pdf), which (it became clear) had been written with a clear intent to preserve affiliation even though only a minority of members chose to affiliate.

Indeed, over the years it has become increasingly obvious that insulating the APF from rank and file pressure was an important aspect of the two section political fund, since neither section of the fund is directly accountable to UNISON Conference or even the UNISON
National Executive, but only to the specific National Committee established for it by the Rule Book.

This meant that, whilst Labour was in Government, motions to UNISON
Conference which sought to place demands on the Labour Party were
ruled out of order. All that most members of the Union could do was ask Conference to request that the National Labour Link Committee considered making such demands. Labour Link payers did eventually force the introduction of directly elected members of the National
Labour Link Committee alongside NEC members, but the Labour Link
structure remains a structure of essentially toothless annual
"forums". Following an early shock in which Geoff Martin led the APF
left to victory in opposition to Tony Blair over Clause Four, the Union machine has become increasingly comfortable with its control of the Labour Link.

UNISON members, on the other hand, became increasingly dissatisfied, for example with the vote on Foundation Hospitals in Blair's second term (in which the Government would have lost were it not for the "UNISON group" of MPs voting more decisively against UNISON policy than the House of Commons as a whole. Members could not see what "UNISON Labour Link" was doing for them.

This dissatisfaction culminated in a Conference decision to launch a review of the political funds early in the last decade, in which the Socialist Party's preferred option of a "third" section to the political fund (which could have supported non-Labour candidates) was considered alongside the options of the status quo and outright disaffiliation. This process of consultation (which excluded the option of a single section political fund under the control of UNISON Conference preferred by many on the left) did not lead to change (which given that the "change" option was absurd is hardly surprising - it could have led to UNISON supporting more than one candidate in the same election).

The two section political fund came through thirteen years in which a Labour Government was (at the very best) a distinctly mixed blessing for UNISON members and is therefore a robust way of retaining affiliation to Labour in the face of mass opposition from trade union
members. It may not have served the interests of our members, but it served its purpose.

However, by the end of this period dissatisfaction with the utter inadequacy of the Labour Link forced our General Secretary - at the 2009 Conference - to trespass on the autonomy of the APF by calling - in his Conference speech - for a moratorium on Constituency Development Plans with their selective reinstatement on political grounds.

Over the years the proportion of members in the APF has fallen from
40% at the time of merger to 33% now. Of course now, after twenty years, the vast majority of UNISON members have only ever been in UNISON. As I explain in the Red Pepper piece, the administrative arrangements for allocation of members who do not express a preference is vital to keeping the size of that minority up.

Those of us who believe in the link between Labour and the trade unions (and I believe that its loss would be a strategic defeat for the working class) ought not to express admiration for political fund arrangements which have prevented our members from making best use of the link because they were always designed to preserve affiliation with or without support, whilst insulating our Labour Party work from rank and file pressure.

I'm not suggesting that the arrangements in other unions are, or have been, any better. In some ways, UNISON's structures and lay democracy (however limited) expose our shortcomings to view more clearly.

The link we should fight to defend ought, however, to be a living, breathing, democratic link, which the APF certainly never has been.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Dave Prentis is right

Regular readers of the blog will realise that the title of this post isn't really what is to be expected here.

However, I've had occasion to look at the responses from our three largest trade unions to Ed Miliband's silly little speech earlier today, in which he provided an object lesson in why we need far fewer career politicians with no genuine labour movement experience.

I can't really see the need to add to what I said yesterday in anticipation of this unfortunate episode (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/what-do-i-do-with-rosette-ed.html?m=1) (except to say that, after listening to the speech, I still went canvassing)(or "door knocking" as we now say).

At first glance the response from UNITE (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/uniteandthepoliticallevy/) looks skillful. It's the sort of spin we would normally expect from Progress (the Tory fifth column within Labour) but in an opposite direction. Essentially, UNITE are trying to interpret what Ed Miliband said in the direction of what Len McCluskey wishes he had said, hoping to frame the debate in order to influence the outcome of forthcoming discussions about the detail.

Unfortunately, it's not persuasive to anyone who heard what Ed Miliband actually said. It's quite clear that, like the worst sort of employer, he wants to deal with trade unionists "as individuals"and not collectively, represented by the one with the biggest mouth (perhaps particularly if that mouth belongs to a Scouser).

A softly-softly approach to the talks which McCluskey welcomed so gushingly almost as soon as Miliband had sat down is unlikely to cut much ice. We can't out-spin Progress, we need to outnumber them and out-organise them if we are going to defeat their agenda, which is to neutralise what little is left of trade union power in the Labour Party.

Turning to the response from Paul Kenny and the GMB (http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-ballot-on-political-fund), this is also superficially welcome, being, as it is, characteristically "old school." The GMB position amounts to threatening a ballot on affiliation.

Such a ballot could, of course, only be won through a campaign backed enthusiastically from the top of the Union. Therefore, you could take the view that this is shrewd negotiating by a skilled tactician, showing what he is prepared to do if a compromise cannot be achieved.

Or not.

This might be effective if we were dealing with people who cared about the labour movement or the Labour Party - but the Party Leader aims now to become the willing prisoner of people who believe, as Tony Blair did (and does), that the Labour Party was a historic mistake. Given this, the GMB position will appear to our adversaries as Paul Kenny threatening to saw off the branch on which he is sitting. (The perception of our adversaries may be flawed, but it will influence their response to our actions).

I wondered briefly if these two General Secretaries were playing "good cop, bad cop" but decided that was the script for a low budget "straight to DVD" movie.

So it was something of a relief to come to the UNISON response (http://www.unison.org.uk/content/conBlogPost/25). Dave Prentis says, rightly, that this whole issue is a diversion from the real issues which our members expect us (and the Labour Party) to deal with.

It is.

Progress have eagerly led a (perhaps not unwilling) Labour Leader into a well signposted Tory bear trap which has the dual benefit, for a cruel and failing Government of dividing what we have at the moment instead of an Opposition whilst simultaneously diverting attention from their own failings.

If Miliband had felt he needed to comment further he could have responded with references to the many disgraces of Tory funding (as some of us tried to point out today's Standard - https://mobile.twitter.com/philewis/status/354662800959889408/photo/1).

He did not need to make today's speech. He chose to do it. In doing so he ignored the pressing priorities of working people to dance to a tune played by the media, in harmony with Progress and the Coalition.

The UNISON response is the best of the three both because it is right in its own terms and also because an inscrutable failure even to engage with or acknowledge proposals which you wish had not been made is very often the best opening gambit.

So there you are. Dave Prentis is right.

For anyone who's made it this far into the post, please rest assured that normal service will be resumed as soon as possible, as I intend to review the history of UNISON's unique dual section political fund over the past twenty years.

I can't imagine I'll give that post the same title.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What do I do with the Rosette Ed?

I'm off work tomorrow, and have been intending to do some work, as a Labour Party member, in a local Council by-election.

But the Leader of the Party appears not to want the union link any more (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23234340). He may say he wants to "mend" not "end" the link but if you look at what is being said that's not true.

Our latterday Kinnock says;

"I believe we need people to be able to make a more active, individual, choice on whether they affiliate to the Labour Party.

So we need to set a new direction in our relationship with trade union members in which they choose to join Labour through the affiliation fee: they would actively choose to be individually affiliated members of the Labour Party and they would no longer be automatically affiliated."

The key word here is "individual". The Party will happily take money from willing trade unionists, who will be able to participate in fundraising, door-knocking and generally promoting the political careers of the well-connected with wealthy backers, whilst enjoying all the power and influence which comes of being a Party member these days.

A good, socialist case can be made for the Labour-union link (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/not-just-in-defence-of-the-union-link/) but that's not our Leader's politics. He has chosen the side of "Progress" and those who don't really want the union-link.

Because, if we all just choose as individuals whether or not to affiliate to Labour then there will be no more organic a link between our Union and our Party than there is between the Party and any other civil society organisation.

Individual UNISON members might join the Party, be active in it and even be selected to stand for office, but UNISON as a collective organisation would have no voice (and the fact that we have used our voice poorly and weakly too often is no argument for silence).

Without collective affiliation, how long will trade union delegations still attend Party Conference? Why would there be dedicated seats on the National Executive for bodies which did no more than happen to have in membership a number of disconnected and unorganised individual members of the Party?

Similarly, on Planet Miliband (which appears now to be a satellite of Planet Mandelson), since there would be no affiliation, there could be no disaffiliation and so "Progress" can deliver to the anti-Labour Left the prospect of trade union support for other candidates (which both parties to this unholy alliance have long sought).

It is an irony that Miliband may have been encouraged to believe that this approach to "opting-in" is something the Party could easily survive by a misunderstanding of how it is that as many as a third of UNISON members come to pay into the "affiliated" section of our political fund. If so, he has been very poorly advised - and anyone who thinks the UNISON system amounts to "contracting-in" needs a tutorial in UNISON Rules and processes.

For a son of his father Miliband also exhibits little comprehension of the history of Labourism. "Contracting-in", when it was introduced in 1927 by the Baldwin Government, cost Labour 1.3 Million affiliated members and a quarter of its income.

But that was "contracting-in" imposed upon us by our enemies as revenge for the General Strike, resisted by a united front of the Party and trade unions, and preserving the vital collective nature of union affiliation which anchors the Party to the wider movement. This would be an attack from our own Leader, dividing the Party and movement in order to individuate (and thereby neutralise) the union link.

The half-baked plans of Ed Miliband will do damage to the Labour Party of which Stanley Baldwin could only have dreamed.

The question confronting the trade unions is a much bigger dilemma than my parochial worry about whether I put on that Red Rosette tomorrow. The question is, shall we resist?

Ed Miliband is gambling that our desperation to oust the Coalition will mean that we will swallow anything. I don't think that any self-respecting trade unionist who has hope in the Labour Party should do that.

Any trade union leader who supports Ed Miliband on this question would be writing off the idea of a Party of Labour in this country.

If I wear that Rosette tomorrow, it will be because I am not yet ready to take that step.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

General Secretary's report to the UNISON NEC

Wednesday's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) was dominated by the allocation of NEC members to Committees, and the election of Committee Chairs for the next two years.

General Secretary, Dave Prentis, did however give his characteristically wide-ranging "state of the Union" report.

He began with the demonstration in defence of the National Health Service in Manchester on 29 September, emphasising that this is a priority for the Union. In response to subsequent questions, Dave confirmed that a note would be going out to our Regions the very next day.

Details of the demonstration are apparently set to be finalised at a meeting of the TUC Executive on 9 July. Within UNISON lead responsibility is being given to the North West Region, a decision which may these days have some political as well as geographical merit.

Dave also covered pay in his report, expressing his disappointment that members had not generally been stronger on this issue this year (rest assured that several questioners expressed the view that it might be the leadership who most need to show more strength!)

I was one of those confident that Dave did not intend the more downbeat interpretations of his remark that no one Union, nor one sector, could expect to breach the 1% pay policy for public servants.

With Scottish Local Government workers set to commence a strike ballot with just this aim in mind, and the Higher Education Service Group Executive (SGE) agreeing (at a meeting which - quite annoyingly - clashed with Wednesday's NEC meeting) to ballot for action also, it's clear that the best-led elements of our Union are fed up waiting for a pay dispute that always recedes into the future as time passes. The challenge to our NEC (and our General Secretary) is to give a clear and inspirational lead.

On a more positive note, Dave invited Assistant General Secretary Bronwyn McKenna to report on UNISON's application for judicial review of the Government's imposition of fees for claimants in employment tribunals. Whether or not we succeed in this legal challenge it has certainly been the right thing to do, as sometimes litigation is the only available response to injustice.

UNISON has separately referred to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) the absurd legal restrictions on industrial action ballots imposed by UK law and has won a vitally important, precedent setting Supreme Court decision that school staff can use refuse collectors as comparators in equal pay claims.

Dave also reported that every Region would be organising an event to mark the 65th anniversary of the NHS and covered the challenge which the Union faces to recruit more members and to shift resources from the Centre to the Regions.


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A series of unfortunate events...?

I will get, promptly, to a proper report from today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) but first I need to comment upon the latest of a series of unfortunate events.
At the point today at which NEC members were travelling from the 9th and 1st floors to the ground floor of the UNISON Centre for an unanticipated run-off ballot in the election of NEC members to the National UNISON Labour Link Committee (an election in which your humble blogger was sadly not a winner), thirteen people spent an hour stuck in a lift.
The title of this blog post was suggested to me by one of the NEC members involved in this incident. It was unfortunate that this happened at all, and embarrassing to the Union that it happened on the day of an NEC meeting.
It was additionally embarrassing (I should imagine) that this happened on the day of the first full meeting of a new NEC following our biennial elections.
But, this was just the last in a series of unfortunate events (and that series of events help to explain why today's lift incident was even more embarrassing than might otherwise have been the case).
For the reason why so many people were in a lift travelling from the top to the bottom of the impressive erection of the Euston Road in the middle of a UNISON NEC was that we don't hold NEC meetings all together in one place.
We don't do that because the Ninth Floor of the UNISON Centre is not an accessible venue for all NEC members. So most NEC members meet at the top of the building, and a few participate (imperfectly) through a partial audio-visual link from the first floor.
We could meet - on the ground floor of the UNISON Centre - in a perfectly satisfactory venue accessible to all NEC members.
However, not only have successive Presidential Teams refused to consider any such relocation, repeated requests that the NEC be permitted at least to vote on where we should meet have been refused, most recently today.
Two years ago a UNISON NEC meeting took place on the ground floor of the UNISON Centre because of teething problems on the 9th floor - but since then the NEC has not been offered the opportunity to continue to meet in that entirely satisfactory venue, nor even the opportunity to vote on this.
So what was (perhaps) most unfortunate of all the series of unfortunate events was that UNISON NEC members were trapped in a lift precisely because they had not been given the opportunity even to vote on relocating their own meeting within their own building.
UNISON cannot be held responsible for the disgraceful approach implemented in our name (that an approach to making a "reasonable adjustment" which segregates the person for whom such an adjustment is made from the rest of the NEC is to be preferred to moving NEC meetings so that all members can participate equally).
UNISON cannot be held responsible for this disgraceful approach because the democratically elected ruling body of our trade union has had no opportunity to take such responsibility. However, our NEC can not deny responsibilty for allowing ourselves to be treated in this way.
Those of us who can no more stomach segregation in the name of "reasonable adjustment" than we would on grounds of race or gender (or any other reason) have had no opportunity to express our views within our trade union (even though we may be members of our Union's ruling NEC).
It will be yet another "unfortunate event" if this blatant breach of UNISON's proud commitment to equality has to be taken outside our trade union. However, those of us who believe in UNISON's values cannot permit a misplaced loyalty to those who claim to share that belief to get in the way of giving effect to our values.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON's Magnificent Seven Minus One

Before I get further into reporting from today's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council I will report on a relatively minor item from the end of the meeting, but one which puts UNISON in a good light.

This concerns nominations to the General Council of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). UNISON has - as all TUC affiliates have - the right to make nominations to various sections of the General Council which are elected by the whole of Congress. In one such we agreed to renominate Gloria Mills to represent black women trade unionists.

We also have the right, in Section A, to nominate seven direct representatives of UNISON on to the General Council. However, today, our NEC nodded through a recommendation that we make only six such nominations. This was not some error or oversight, but a thought out approach to demonstrating UNISON's commitment to the principle that the TUC should not simply be dominated by the biggest trade unions.

Therefore we agreed to nominate Jane Carolan, Eleanor Smith and Chris Tansley, from the NEC, and Karen Jennings, Dave Prentis and Liz Snape, from our senior management, to sit on the General Council of the TUC, whilst leaving our seventh seat vacant.

As a forthright critic of our leadership from time to time, it is only right that I pay tribute to the Presidential Team for having thought through, debated and recommended this gesture of respect for the smaller trade unions who are also an important part of our movement.

The dog that didn't (quite) bark at UNISON Conference

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will know that sometimes at a trade union Conference it's the decisions which don't get taken which tell you as much about what is going on as those that are.

The front page story of two of the four Conference bulletins produced for (rather than by) the National Executive Council (NEC) were devoted to attacks on a motion which never even got debated - Motion 107.

Opposition to this motion had included reference to cynical blog posts written late at night, so readers of this blog will no doubt take this post with a pinch of the salt which you will have scattered in a circle around yourself before reading this...

So what was Motion 107 about?

It sought to increase the proportion of UNISON's subscription income which goes to our branches from 23.5% to 25.5%, giving the increment directly only to those branches who have taken on the administration of our membership database.

This would have moved no more than £3.4 Million out of the Centre and to the branches. It provoked not just fillibustering but flattery, threats and procedural innovations. Perhaps if (or I should say when) UNISON Conference gets to vote on the allocation of funding between branches and the Centre it's pretty much inevitable we shall opt for some greater decentralisation?

Why is this so?

Partly it's that collective bargaining has been increasingly decentralised as our national trade union has proven incapable of defending much more than the shell of national bargaining.

Partly it's that our branches are facing up to organising a fragmenting workforce as our national trade union has proven insufficiently strong to prevent this fragmentation.

Partly it's that our branches face additional accommodation and staffing costs as our national trade union has been found wanting in defending trade union facilities.

All of these weaknesses of our national trade union flow (most recently) from the premature abandonment of the fight to defend our pensions and from its debilitating consequences, including those for local government pay this year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, the roots of the decentralisation of employee relations in public services are deeper than the events of the past two years. It seems to be unavoidable that our national trade union has decreasing relevance to the interests of our members.

It follows that those who care for the future of our trade union will want to try to find an accommodation with those who, quite reasonably and responsibly, supported Motion 107.

Sometimes a motion that isn't even debated can be the beginning of a result.

But if you've read this far, you already knew that...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

29 September and the NHS. It's not how we got here, it's where we're going

Following my disappointment at the June meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) where a majority opposed all talk of a national demonstration, I'm pleased I was right to be optimistic that a better position would emerge at last week's UNISON Conference (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/06/unison-and-defence-of-our-national.html?m=1).



After the contributions of our own General Secretary last Tuesday and that of the General Secretary of the TUC a week ago today, it is clear that we shall be heading for Manchester on 29 September for a national demonstration in defence of the National Health Service, with further campaigning ahead in the months to follow.



Some on the left will be critical of the time taken to get to this point, they will warn that, if our only message is "vote Labour", we won't be saying enough, and they will question the extent to which we can rely upon our own leaders. On all three questions they will have a point.



However, now that the call for this demonstration has been made, the most important thing we can do is to make it massive - and use it to boost and bolster local campaigns in defence of the health service, and public services generally.



Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

If there are Councillors Against the Cuts, shouldn't we be too?

Continuing my catching up from the events of last week's UNISON Conferences, I want to say something about "Councillors Against the Cuts", which was the theme of a debate at Local Government Conference last Monday, and a fringe meeting at National Delegate Conference last Wednesday.



Attendance at the fringe suffered not only from a clash with the bedroom tax fringe but also from the fact that, in navigating the rapids of Rule P, the branch moving motions on this subject to both Conferences failed to foresee that the subject would be debated at the Conference at which it had originally been ruled out of order, but would not be prioritised for debate at the Conference at which it had originally been admitted to the agenda.



The debate at Local Government Conference was somewhat sidetracked by an amendment from the Service Group Executive (SGE) which asked Conference to acknowledge that any dialogue with Councillors Against the Cuts (for which the main motion called) would be in the context of a previous SGE circular opposing the advocacy of "no cuts" budgets.



Whilst this cackhanded wrecking amendment was deservedly trounced it was in any case unnecessary, since any dialogue in which our SGE participates will inevitably be informed by the timidity which is their guiding principle on this question.



The reality is that by passing Motion 47 we have unlocked a door which remains wedged shut, and to which we will have to apply our shoulder by way of model motions, and other initiatives, at branch and Regional level if we are to push UNISON towards the position of practical and meaningful opposition to all cuts which is the logic of so much of our current policy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The pay "debate" at UNISON Conference - leadership, "platform-bashing" and the future of national bargaining

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will know that sometimes in the past I have blogged throughout Conference week.

It may be my advancing years but this year I decided to focus on various goings-on at Conference rather than blogging away, to some of these goings-on I shall now turn and the first of these, chronologically and in terms of its importance to our members, is pay.

Last Sunday's "debate" on pay at Local Government Conference attracted the ire of the grumpy post-Marxist-Leninists of the (occasionally) self-proclaimed "sensible left" (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2013/06/platform-bashing-over-pay-papers-over.html?) for "platform-bashing."

Now it may be true that, if "platform-bashing" were an Olympic sport, your not-very-humble blogger would aspire to be a medal hopeful, but sometimes a platform deserves to be bashed, and in relation to this year's lamentable 1% pay rise the Local Government Service Group Executive (SGE) deserved the bashing they got (with numerous sound contributions, notably from a delegate from Bristol).

Incidentally, as seasoned Conference watchers will recall, although the relevant pay negotiations are handled by the sector Committee, accountability is still vested in the SGE as a result of the defeat of amendments proposed by the NEC in 2009 (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/rules-for-unison-delegates.html?m=1).

The Local Government Conference discussion on pay took the form of a post mortem, since local government members had already decided, by a margin of three to two across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to accept 1%. Because this event was so recent, no Conference decision addressed it (indeed the pay "debate" was conducted largely by a series of speeches "for" a motion moved from the platform (on behalf of the NJC Committee) by a leftwinger (although one despicable individual "jumped the queue" by the device of speaking, but not voting against).

The clear mood of Conference was hostile to the pusillanimous position of putting an offer to members as "the best that can be achieved by negotiation" without a clear recommendation either way. Somehow in future years we must try to turn that mood into policy which will bind the SGE and its sector Committees (either that or elect more people prepared to show leadership).

Those who think the "platform-bashing" a futile diversion from building our strength for the fight next time ignore the evidence from Scottish Local Government, or Higher Education, where clear leadership offers members the real opportunity to reject real-terms pay cuts. Whilst the weakness of our leadership may well reflect their perception of our weakness on the ground, which may not be ill-informed, until the leadership start at least trying to turn this round we are stuck in a spiral of decline.

The different results of the consultation exercise in London and, even more, the North West Region, demonstrate that a different outcome to the 2013 pay round for local government workers south of the border was possible.

It no longer is.

However, if the anger expressed at the SGE on pay is to have been anything more than cathartic we need to start a campaign now, with leaflets and petitions to our members, lobbies of local authorities, and model motions to Regional Local Government Committees in support of a vigorous campaign for an identified flat-rate pay rise across the board in 2014. The resources of the UNISON Centre need to be devoted to researching the positive economic impact of a boost to the earnings of local government workers so that we can demonstrate that pay justice for us will bring wider social and economic benefits.

We also need to make this a joint union campaign at a local level, so that we can fight alongside low paid GMB members in particular to ensure that our sister union takes the sort of firm line nationally on pay which they have shown locally in the dispute in Brighton.

Whatever was said from the top table last week about building a fight on pay in 2014, in the year before a General Election there will inevitably be pressure applied against industrial action from those in the bureaucracy of our movement who think it might inhibit Labour's electoral prospects.

We therefore need to start building momentum now for the fight over pay which is not just our only chance to restore our living standards - but also our best chance of saving national bargaining.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Out of the bubble

I'm back in the real world now after UNISON's Local Government and National Delegate Conferences and will catch up with blogging over the next few days (including some proper reports from Conference).

For the moment I'll share a few unconnected thoughts from a Conference which was at once inspiring and worrying.

There's a lot of anger amongst our activists, much of it directed at our leadership - but there's neither the confidence nor the organisation of the rank and file to make that anger count. That's why Local Government Conference gave the top table a kicking over a pay deal we had already accepted. We need to build rank and file organisation if we want a different outcome in 2014 (or ever).

The further-sighted elements of our leadership see the problems which our Union faces (and that this may require greater radicalism than is offered by their loyal supporters) - hence the call for the national demonstration to defend the NHS in Manchester on 29 September. However (as the Grand Old Duke of York may well eventually have discovered) it's not always easy to mobilise people. We have a lot of work to do and a lot of trains and coaches to book and fill.

One theme of this year across our movement may well be that a lamentably attenuated grasp of gender politics has become the "common sense of the age" - and the defeat of Amendment 8.1 at Conference showed the same lack of understanding of the specificity of male violence against women which had previously been exhibited elsewhere. Given that UNISON now has, for the first time, a Presidential Team (of the President and two Vice-Presidents) which is exclusively female, I continue to hope that those women (and men) who see the need for the Union with the most women members to be a feminist organisation shall prevail.

The "left" in UNISON, which once routinely punched above its weight at Conference has been marginalised as Conference has been sanitised. Looking back over twenty years of UNISON, it is easy to see how the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) has taken a progressively more restrictive approach, how the prioritisation process has been honed into a device to avoid controversy, and how those who want Conference to be a showcase rather than "the supreme Government" of the Union have become better and better at floor organising.

This last problem is but one aspect of the problem that there is no effective rank and file organisation within UNISON.

And that is a question to which I intend to return...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Through the looking glass

En route to Liverpool for UNISON's National Local Government Conference I shall soon pass through the portal which separates Conference from reality.

I think that those colleagues who call the shots on our National Joint Council (NJC) Local Government Committee may have traveled several months ahead, since their policy at Conference is strangely different from their practice in the mundane world of everyday life.

One of the entertaining features of our Conference (well, entertaining to Conference anoraks and geeks such as myself) is that motions drafted weeks ahead of a February deadline appear on a June agenda like some sort of fossil record.

This can be tricky for the authors when "events" have intervened, as they sometimes do. If a week is a long time in politics, a few months can be a very long time in industrial relations. Long enough, perhaps, for an ice sculpture to melt even if it hadn't been smashed.

The NJC Committee's Motion 40 ("Calling a Halt to Poverty Pay in Local Government") is now part of Composite C which will be debated tomorrow afternoon. It "condemns the shameful state of pay and conditions for local government workers across the UK" and affirms that "we must continue to demand and campaign for a substantial pay increase that will return us to a position where our pay allows our members to have a decent standard of living."

All well and good.

But wouldn't this be the same NJC Committee which (by 14 votes to 13) refused to recommend members reject a 1% pay offer which the Committee itself described as an "insult" (Leading, as night follows day, to the reluctant acceptance of this insult by our members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland)?

I'm afraid it is.

There is much to be ashamed about in "the shameful state of pay and conditions for local government workers" - but who is it that should feel that shame?

Should it not be the lead national negotiators of the majority local government trade union?

Out in the real world, where tens of thousands of our members are losing their jobs and hundreds of thousands suffer attacks on pay and conditions, the answer to that question would certainly be "yes".

But through the looking glass in the parallel universe of Conference it will be a speaker on behalf of the NJC Committee who will lambast the shameful state of our pay and conditions as they speak to a Composite which will be passed unanimously.

The greatest threat to sector-level national bargaining in local government comes not from the hostility of the employers but from the pusillanimous trade union side.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Pay fiasco shows it's time for a change?

Today, on behalf of the largest group of organised workers in the UK economy, our negotiators have signalled that we'll accept a 1% pay rise, way below the rate of inflation.



I beg to differ that our members should bend the knee to further decline in living standards.



I did say we should reject 1% (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/06/show-some-leadership-reject-1.html?m=1)



I foresaw that this might not happen (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-deserve-pay-rise-how-do-we-get-it.html?m=1)



I share the criticisms which are made of this outcome (http://unisonactive.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/njc-pay-consultation-we-got-to-do.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&m=1).



Now, right now, what I want is a leadership prepared to fight.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with the GMB

I mostly blog here about my trade union work.



I am also a Labour Party Branch Officer and, in that capacity, am happy to have offered support today to the GMB strikers who won't be emptying my bins tomorrow (http://www.gmb-southern.org.uk/brighton-strike-tomorrow-and-rally-saturday/).



The implementation of single status pay and grading reviews has provoked more than one dispute, but in all such disputes the position of socialists is straightforward.



We are on the side of the workers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The best that can be achieved by negotiation?

After a three year pay freeze in which the living standards of local government workers have fallen by 16%, today's news is disappointing. Our pay will increase by 1% this year, whilst prices rise by 3%.

Our negotiators having forced the employers to offer the whole of the 1% which George Osborne had suggested in the first place, by a narrow majority UNISON's National Joint Council (NJC) Committee then failed to recommend that we reject a pay offer which they themselves described as "an insult."

In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that, by a margin of nearly three to two, UNISON members accepted an offer that they were told was "the best that can be achieved by negotiation." The NJC Committee copped out by failing to recommend either acceptance (an honest capitulation) or rejection (which would have been in line with the interests of our members).

The significance of this dereliction of duty by the narrow majority of the NJC Committee is underlined by the fact that the two Regions which returned a majority vote to reject (London and the North West) were also the two Regions in which the Regional Local Government Committee/Executive recommended rejection.

In the same way, in Scotland, members have responded to a clear lead by rejecting the 1% insult which local government workers south of the border will now be swallowing - they are now rightly preparing for a strike ballot with a definite plan of action. I wish them luck.

Workers are rarely keen to strike - and to be asked to consider doing so by a visibly unenthusiastic leadership is always likely to elicit a negative response. Those who want to accept a real terms pay cut on behalf of some of the lowest paid trade unionists are never likely positively to propose this - that's where the weasel words ("the best that can be achieved by negotiation") come into their own.

What does this mean?

It means "the best that can be achieved by negotiation without either the reality or credible threat of action".

If we ballot for action, if we take action, then we can find that we negotiate a better deal than we could have done before we threatened, or before we took that action.

Locally, at branch level, we have used the threat of action to get better deals several times in recent years. Thus far we've not got to the point of taking action. A credible threat can be a useful tool - but a credible threat can only be issued by a leadership who look like they mean it.

To do this you have to start with a hard conversation with union members, in which you tell members things they may not want to hear.

You have to tell people the truth - that they have an interest in fighting to defend their interests (and sometimes also a duty to their current and future colleagues). You have to do what you can to force members to prepare for sacrifices that will hurt them and which they may be unenthusiastic to make.

It's not an argument you always win - and you run the risk of unpopularity.

But that's what leadership is.

Leadership is not telling people what they want to hear, reflecting back passivity and unwillingness to take risks and make sacrifices.

I think that the North West and London Regions showed leadership in the local government pay dispute.

The only way we will ever really get to "the best that can be achieved by negotiation" is by threatening, - if necessary - balloting for and -if possible - taking industrial action.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON NEC elections revisited

A comrade in the branch asked me earlier if there was any analysis of the outcome of the UNISON NEC elections. I could have said, "I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago" (http://www.jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/unison-nec-elections-plus-ca-change.html?m=1) but that would have been silly.



I could have referred to the comment of a senior official who, when I said the elections demonstrated little change, observed "that's how we like it", but that would also have been silly.



So I went back and looked at the detailed results.



And they do lead to a few clear conclusions.



First, the turnout remains depressingly low. This has remained more or less consistent throughout my decade on the NEC. This occasionally provokes a bit of soul-searching, but - objectively - UNISON election turnouts are not exceptional in the movement and - subjectively - the combined forces of national officials and incumbent NEC members tend to find other priorities than transforming how we elect our NEC.



Secondly, the benefit of incumbency in trade union elections, which is a fairly well-established historically, was demonstrated fairly clearly in these elections.



In only four cases were incumbents seeking re-election defeated (and in one of these cases the incumbent had already resigned and did not campaign, while in another the Region had lost representation compared to the last election).



Finally, as to the political balance on the NEC, that is pretty much unchanged in general, as left-wingers retiring or defeated have been replaced by newcomers, albeit in different constituencies.



If we're going to see the changed approach to leadership which our trade union needs then we're going to have to achieve this through dialogue and persuasion of NEC colleages.



So optimism of the will could come in handy...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

We deserve a pay rise. How do we get it?

The TUC are quite right that we need a pay rise (http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/britainneedsapayrise.cfm) - the question for trade unions, and trade unionists is, as ever "what is to be done?"

Over recent years our leaders have been predicting the anger that would end the pay freeze. This anger seems now like a mirage, forever shimmering on the horizon and always beyond our reach. Always this wasn't the year to fight (but soon!) Then it was. Then it wasn't again. Now? Now we shall see.

Clearly events have not unfolded as expected. It's broadly true that, for decades (generations even) every episode of pay restraint has been defeated by an upsurge in industrial action, often driven by unofficial rank and file pressure in the first instance.

But now, after the longest and deepest fall in real wages in living memory, this still hasn't happened (yet). Why?

I think there are a number of factors which mark the current period out from earlier waves of industrial conflict provoked by pay restraint.

Fears for job security are obviously real for many of our members but - historically and currently - these fears are not of themselves an insurmountable obstacle to fighting for higher pay.

Certainly the political context is less favourable than (say) a generation ago. There is no global alternative to capitalism. There is no visible Parliamentary alternative to austerity. There is a generation of workers with no memory of such things or much knowledge of trade unionism.

A generation of anti-union legislation has also trained trade union officialdom to play a key role in policing workplace militancy - and this has had a cumulative deadening effect upon the vigour and combativity of the movement, as well as the confidence of the rank and file.

This context doesn't mean it is impossible to fight as was shown by the public sector pensions dispute or, very differently, by the electricians. The modest recent increase in trade union membership may even indicate a turning of the tide.

However, rebuilding confidence and combativity cannot be done by sitting and waiting for the tide to turn so we can surf on the crest of a wave of rank and file militancy. In these times, leadership cannot consist of passively reflecting back the mood of the membership in the hope that it will improve.

That's why, whatever the outcome of tomorrow's UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee and of the pay consultation exercise which will be reported to it, the approach of the North West Regional Local Government Committee (to make a positive recommendation to reject a further real terms pay cut) was correct, and the approach of the (narrow) majority of the NJC Committee itself was wrong.

We won't revive our movement until we start leading a fight for the interests of our class like we mean it.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON and the defence of our National Health Service

At the front line of public service delivery, in health, local government and across public services, many trade unionists are ground down by falling living standards, increasing workloads and job insecurity.



Even the most politically motivated of us can be constrained by this everyday reality - too busy dealing with constant pressure of redundancy and reorganisation to raise our eyes from our local concerns.



In these circumstances it's all too easy, when asked to imagine the challenge of bold and decisive action (whether a national strike or a national demonstration) to shrink back to dealing with pressing local concerns, unable even to believe that more is possible in the here and now.



That's why an event like UNISON Conference, next week in Liverpool, can be an important occasion in the battle to defend our National Health Service. We must and will fight locally to defend our health service, but this war cannot be won only with local skirmishes.



Next week, UNISON's leadership will have the opportunity to give a bold lead to the next step in a national fight to save the NHS, leading a united Conference to engender confidence and enthusiasm among local activists.



We know this is possible, we saw the potential of the Union when decisively led in this spring's recruitment campaign, and eighteen months previously in the run up to the pensions strike.



A national mobilisation in defence of the NHS can provide a vital focus for essential local campaigns - and an opportunity to shift popular opinion and electoral politics in our direction.



In Liverpool next week, UNISON has an opportunity to give a united lead.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Recruitment, Organisation and Industrial Action

One rather odd debate, which popped up more than once at today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) concerned the relationship between recruitment, organisation and industrial action.

It was good to hear once more that, in the target period of this spring's recruitment drive we recruited 44% more members than we had in the comparable period last year. This does indeed demonstrate that an effort of will, backed up with resources, can deliver results.

However, this recent experience does not alter the compelling historical evidence, which is that major "spikes" in recruitment figures are often associated with popular and well-supported industrial action.

Delegates at Conference may therefore find it odd that the NEC decided (on the recommendation of the Development and Organisation Committee, of which I am a member) to oppose Amendment 1.3 at National Delegate Conference.

This amendment, moved by the Southwark Branch to an NEC motion on Organising, and timetabled for debate, essentially makes the point that industrial action can be beneficial for recruitment.

Opponents of the amendment, who carried the day at the NEC, denied the existence of any such relationship. Their argument (which I have heard before from officers) was that it is not that the Union is fighting in our members' (and potential members') interests which helps us to recruit.

Rather it is other activity, incidentally associated with industrial action (and described by one of my fellow NEC members as "talking to our members") which boosts recruitment.

I fear this line of argument is as unpersuasive as it is ill-informed. Supporters of Amendment 1.3 didn't and don't argue that industrial action is the only way to boost recruitment. The amendment simply makes the point that industrial action can be, and often is, associated with trade union growth.

The NEC policy of opposing Amendment 1.3 may well prove as counter-productive as it is misguided, since it could see the debate on organising at Conference dominated by an entirely unnecessary disagreement.

As a member of a minority on an NEC Committee I've done all I can - it's up to Conference delegates to determine UNISON policy now.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Scottish local government strike

In a debate on pay at today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) it was left to Scottish NEC member, Jane Carolan, to report on today's biggest UNISON news (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8564).



Our members in Scottish local government are to ballot for strike action alongside members of UNITE (GMB having decided to accept the below-inflation 1% pay offer). There are plans for two national one-day strikes and a rolling programme of regional strikes.



This positive news should encourage local government workers in England Wales and Northern Ireland to reject the similar offer before us - and for Higher Education staff to do likewise.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Support Yorkshire Health strikers

At today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) NEC members from local government (Paul Holmes) and Yorkshire (Vicky Perrin) asked General Secretary Dave Prentis about the dispute in our Mid-Yorkshire Health Branch (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=8561).



Dave Prentis confirmed UNISON's full support for our members who are preparing for further strike action in a continuing battle against job and pay cuts from an employer happy to spend public money on external consultants rather than public service. The employers are threatening the Branch Secretaries of UNISON and UNITE with redundancy - and UNISON needs to match their escalation with increased support for the branch.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON and Labour - what next?

General Secretary, Dave Prentis, gave his characteristically wide-ranging report to the National Executive Council (NEC) this morning.



He started with the news that UNISON's new website will go live next week - so look out for that.



It sounds as if there will be plenty to report on the website since the Tories are ratcheting up attacks on the trade unions.



The Government are attacking the role of teaching assistants - vital low-paid public servants - whilst implementing tax cuts for the rich.



The Tory right have "check-off" arrangements in their sights - and the Government are trying to turn a crisis of sleaze in Parliament into an opportunity to restrict political campaigning by the trade unions.



Questions to Dave revolved very much around the disappointing response from the Labour leadership, whose consistent failure to offer a radical and coherent alternative (in line with the progressive policies of the trade unions) may well be the greatest threat to the prospect of a majority Labour Government.



Labour Link Chair, Steve Warwick, and Labour Party NEC member, Wendy Nicholls both responded to the debate. I'd like to say that we arrived at a conclusion about how UNISON should exert a positive political influence upon the Labour Party.



But you can't always have what you like.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Should we march to save our NHS?

UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) met today. The first debates focused on NEC policy on amendments to motions for our National Delegate Conference in Liverpool in a fortnight's time.



The most heated and important debate focused on a recommendation from our Policy Committee that the NEC should oppose calls for a national demonstration in defence of our National Health Service.



I was among a minority who opposed this recommendation, believing that UNISON should take a bold lead to give a national focus for the growing number of local campaigns defending our health service.



Unfortunately a majority were won to the view that "now is not the time" for such a national demonstration as there isn't a "mood" for it - a view which, we were told, had been taken by delegates at Health Conference.



The future of the NHS is a citizenship, not a service group, issue - and the 25,000 recently on the streets of Lewisham demonstrate the support that will be shown for the national demonstration in defence of the National Health Service when (not if) it is called.



Our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, made the sound point that UNISON may well find ourselves having to decide to support such a national demonstration called by others.



UNISON Conference will have the final say on UNISON policy.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Show some leadership - reject 1%

Back to work after Whitsun and a key priority is encouraging UNISON members to respond to the consultation on local government pay and - I hope - to reject the 1% pay insult (in line with the policy agreed by UNISON's Local Government Service Group in the Greater London and North West Regions).



However, since rejection requires a serious commitment to strike action, some members will - no doubt - opt to accept a below-inflation pay increase. That's their right and I respect their views. Above all, trade unionists should express a view.



Opinions are not, however, static more than dynamic. Nor are they individual more than they are collective. The fallacy of the opinion-poll driven politics of my generation has been a politics which aspires to no more than reflecting back at people their own individual answers to loaded questions. Blairites call its consequences "triangulation" and hold it to be the highest wisdom.



They are wrong.



Leadership can play a role in forming consciousness - which is why it is such a shame that, by such a narrow majority, 14 members of the National Joint Council Committee rejected the wisdom of another 13. A clear national recommendation to reject a pay offer, described as "an insult" by the very Committee that failed to recommend its rejection, would have emboldened our members to deliver a decisive rejection.



We saw, in the run up to 30 November 2011, how - in UNISON - leadership could function to make our trade union an organisation deserving of our pride. In its own way the positive results of this spring's recruitment drive has shown something similar.



In the absence of a positive national lead from the Local Government Service Group (outside Scotland) it falls to Regions and Branches to try to demonstrate such leadership. It's harder to do this successfully at a more local level.



But we have to try.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Balls!

So Labour will commit to means-test Winter Fuel Allowance in order to prove the "iron discipline" that will be shown to public finances if we win a majority in 2015 (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22748914).



This stupid departure from social democratic principle is supposedly symbolic of our response to the challenge of proving Labour's "economic competency" but can do no such thing. We'll always lose a dutch auction on social welfare with the Tories.



As long as Labour remains within a narrative led by the Coalition and defined within the Westminster bubble we shall continue to fail even to be relevant to the popular hunger for an alternative reflected in (for example) by the impressive attendances at preparatory meetings for the forthcoming Peoples' Assembly (http://thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/).



A promise of "iron discipline" on public spending won't secure the endorsement of the Mail, Express or Telegraph but it will confirm to civil servants striking in the front line against austerity this week (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/1D9CB666-1DC1-46AE-95D2D9BB86FAC012) that Labour doesn't plan to ride to the rescue of public services.



Whether our leadership are just naturally too timid, or whether they are hamstrung by the continuing influence of the well-funded Blairite cabal, Labour is missing an opportunity to inspire, mobilise and lead opposition to the Coalition.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

GUMBISON ruled out?

Back to work tomorrow after half term so back to blogging just in time to learn that Brian Strutton has told the GMB Congress categorically that there are no merger talks with UNISON.



As a UNISON NEC member I'd like to think that, having heard of no such talks, there have indeed been none, but it's as well to have these things confirmed.



UNISON and GMB have been making eyes at each other in public at recent TUCs - but it does now seem we were only ever trying to make UNITE jealous...



Given that our Development and Organisation Committee threw out a protocol developed between officials of the two unions to reduce membership "poaching" it's clear there's little appetite for merger among lay members of either Union.



Joint working between rank and file representatives of UNISON and GMB at a local level is essential to protect workers' interests - mutual hostility only ever ends up strengthening the employers. We should be far quicker to support each other's disputes.



In the long run, the existence of any particular trade union isn't written in stone. We made UNISON twenty years ago - but it is inevitably an open question whether it will exist in the same form to receive my application to be a retired member in another twenty years time.



However, for now, a merger with the GMB would be (for both unions I should imagine) a massive distraction from the task of rebuilding our membership and our strength in the workplace. The one merger which would have had compelling industrial logic and significant political benefits over the past decade is the one which, it now seems, will never happen (at least not with UNISON).



With trade union membership figures edging upwards, and positive news from UNISON's spring recruitment drive, we need to focus outwards to the interests of members and potential members.



And at least now we know we will never have the misfortune to become part of an organisation which would inevitably have been called "GUMBISON"...



Hat tip Andy Newman on twitter.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Rudderless in a storm?

As the Government of millionaires attacks on one front after another, the political left is bereft of direction.

The catalogue of brutality unleashed by the side currently winning the class war would have been unimaginable even three years ago.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs have gone over the same period as real wages have continued to fall in an unprecedented way.

The tide of privatisation rising across the public sector has begun irreversibly to engulf the health service and now laps at the feet of postal workers.

The demonisation of claimants is gradually capturing the popular imagination as benefit cuts force us back to the nineteenth century.

Legal aid cuts and employment tribunal fees (coupled with changes to rules on remission), together with other changes to employment law further hobble workers individually and collectively.

Even the seemingly solid social gains of a generation of progress towards equality are fragile in this most reactionary century. The defence of the public sector equality duty will be of totemic importance.

So where is the opposition?

The (capital "O") Opposition are sporadically present - unfortunately their official backing is as much an unavoidable necessity as it is generally unavailable for effective national resistance.

Labour can still mobilise some meaningful opposition to "Tory cuts" (as in the London Fire Service) but is hamstrung by the Party's collusion in many cuts in its quest for "credibility" on the economy.

In large part the absence of our Labour Party where we so badly need it is a function of a generation of timidity and inadequacy on the part of the trade union leadership.

The strategic error of supporting New Labour in the 1990s has had cumulative, calamitous political consequences for the trade union movement which are still playing themselves out.

Since the General Election the unions have been pushed into mobilising us as a stage army on three occasions, as if we could still play by rules written decades ago. We can't and it hasn't worked.

Even the largest strike since the General Strike secured next to nothing in the way of meaningful concessions on public service pensions. Laughable attempts to pretend otherwise did nothing other than undermine the morale and motivation of our activists.

The General Secretaries are staring into the abyss and have no more idea what to do than I have.

Out on the further reaches of the left (where I have always found my friends, comrades and spiritual home) there is no more direction or purpose.

Those who hoped the Green Party was a new road to a new Jerusalem can pick their way through the litter strewn streets of Brighton as they contemplate their error.

The largest far left political party has imploded, and those clinging to its wreckage simply haven't noticed yet that it is over (though it may not be dead for years - some people still sell the "Newsline").

The latest electoral project of the far left has broken all records for tragic irrelevance. Socialists might as well practice "entryism" in the Monster Raving Loony Party as continue to place hope in TUSC.

Such is the lack of hope that an excellent film maker has managed to lever his deserved reputation to promote the "Left Unity" project (which falls somewhere between Sir Richard Acland's Common Wealth Party and the political equivalent of vanity publishing).

I too wish their were an alternative to the Labour Party - but no matter how many lamps I rub no such alternative appears.

The political problem confronting the working class in this country, as throughout Europe, over the last generation is the political inadequacy of our trade unions, not the political label of the politicians we can vote for.

This time of weakness and disorientation provokes and encourages infighting. Unable to make a difference in the wider world, comrades retreat into squabbles they believe they can win.

Internicine strife between and within groups on the left will continue to get worse as long as we fail to change the script of this tale of retreats and defeats.

So what do we do?

We fight back.

Wherever you are, working or unemployed, you can organise collectively to resist the ruling class offensive as best you can.

We have suffered many defeats and will suffer more. Lives are being ruined - and ended - and we, who should lead the resistance, are continuing to fail.

So we must rethink, regroup and redouble our efforts.

We may be rudderless in a storm but that is no excuse for failing to keep the boat afloat.

Our trade union movement, the oldest in the world, remains the largest voluntary organisation in UK civil society by a country mile.

We are not weak.

We are not powerless.

We need not be ineffective.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Fire Cuts Should Burn Boris

I was proud to be among the 200 people who marched through Brixton to Lambeth Town Hall on the evening of Thursday 16 May to express our opposition to the closure of Clapham Fire Station (http://www.saveclapham.com/).



The subsequent public consultation reflected local feeling in that it was dominated by opposition to cuts and closures in our fire service. Having had the unique experience of speaking on top of a fire engine in order to address protestors, I was also lucky to be called to ask a question in a packed Assembly Hall.



I asked about the Equality Impact Assessment, copies of which were not available at the meeting and are only available online (http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Sup16-Equality-analyses.pdf). This impact assessment is clearly a very important document, since the fire cuts being pushed by Mayor Boris increase response times to fires in Inner London whilst improving response times in much of Outer London.



The Commissioner didn't answer my question, but offered a meeting with the people who did the Equality Impact Assessment. I'm sure he didn't offer that hoping that I wouldn't bother - but if he did that was a poor judgment.



Lambeth UNISON will hold London's Fire Service to the promise from its most senior official of a proper dialogue about equalities. We certainly need to see - for example - a disaggregation of changes in response times as between those in "high-rise" flats and those who are not, which should be cross referenced with information about "protected characteristics".



We don't make idle criticisms - and if we need to assert our criticism we shall do so on the basis of evidence. We need rid of the current Mayor - whose fire cut plans are as poorly justified as they are intolerable.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A good day for UNISON in South East London

A little over three years ago I became quite irate when UNISON's Greenwich and Bromley branches were taken into regional supervision (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/unisons-suburban-sigurimi.html?m=1).

So I am pleased to have been today at a meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) to hear it formally reported that neither of these branches is any longer under supervision.

There are - exceptionally - circumstances in which a trade union may need to take over the affairs of one of its constituent branches (where there may have been fraud for example). No such circumstances ever existed in either Bromley or Greenwich.

The three years in which UNISON members in two South East London boroughs were needlessly denied their democratic rights witnessed poor performance by our Union in those boroughs. This wasn't because of any failings on the part of the staff dragged away from other duties to take over the branches - it was because gratuitous and unnecessary takeovers of branches is directly contrary to the best ethos of our Union.

UNISON at it's best is a lay-led trade union in which a solid partnership between lay and full-time officials is founded on mutual respect. At it's worse, our Union is capable of being much less than that, and the regional supervision of these branches showed us, unfortunately, at our worst.

It's not as if we weren't warned. Tom Snow had described the state of the Greater London Regional office on the occasion of his retirement just week's before the dawn raids in Woolwich and Bromley (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/thoughts-of-regional-organiser.html?m=1).

It's sadly still true that the Regional Office has a greater focus on bolstering power within the Union than on building the power of the Union. As long as the office can maintain its internal focus on ensuring that the lay structures never challenge it or hold it to account it doesn't seem to matter that UNISON's Greater London Region has no profile and no worthwhile influence.

Just in recent weeks members have approached me about a branch where - encouraged by the Region - officers excluded a member from their Annual General Meeting and a branch where - guided by the Region - officers managed to secure massive disaffection and significant resignations from amongst a recently organised and militant section of the workforce (the Region are trying to turn that situation on its head by misleading the Centre into focusing on the issue of a protest by low paid workers at the UNISON Centre, when the real issue is the attitude of the UNISON Region to those low paid workers in the first place).

I encourage our members to express their concerns appropriately within our Union, but I often doubt whether, when doing so, I am giving good advice. Even after the experience of the pensions dispute, I do not believe that there is a sufficiently powerful will at the UNISON Centre to hold renegade Regions to account. If UNISON fails to provide an effective in-house laundromat we will inevitably and unfortunately end up washing our dirty laundry in public.

At least though, our members in Bromley and Greenwich local government branches can face their daily challenges now as the masters and mistresses of their own fate, no longer under the unhelpful direction of the Region.

Now they can build back to being UNISON at its best.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Out of order?

I owe my apologies to the Dudley Branch for having expressed my support for their Motion 111, on the election of paid officials, which made it on to the Preliminary Agenda for UNISON Conference (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/unison-support-for-election-of-officials.html?m=1).

Clearly a curse afflicts all expressions of support for greater democracy in our trade union, as the Motion has now been ruled out of order, following the decision of the National Executive Council (NEC) to ask the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) to change its mind.

However, the SOC may be keen that a casual observer would not think that they are easily pressured by the NEC (by which I mean, pressured by those whose bidding the NEC does).

For Motion 111 is not the only motion to suffer from the rare but potentially lethal "retrospective ruling out virus." Another motion, seemingly beloved of the NEC, is stricken with the same affiliction - Motion 106 (from the NEC itself) on Branch Funding has also disappeared from the Final Agenda, having flourished in apparently rude health on the Preliminary Agenda.

Could it be that the SOC, having given the NEC the void it wanted in place of a sensible debate on union democracy felt obliged to assert its robust independence by pointing out that Motion 106 did not in fact meet the terms of the previous instruction from our Conference which it was meant to address?

Maybe...

On the other hand, perhaps Motion 106 (which had hitherto been timetabled for debate without any need for prioritisation) had attracted sufficient competent amendments that it threatened an unavoidable and unpredictable debate which might have led to a (necessary and desirable - but not from the perspective of the Centre) devolution of resources?

Perhaps, as I blog, some at the UNISON Centre are celebrating the ruling out of order of Motion 106 even more than that of Motion 111...

Perhaps the celebration is taking place on the empty sixth floor? Or the empty seventh? (Or the roof garden on the essentially empty fifth?)

The eighth is empty most of the time too and would do as well.

The ninth is just empty prestige when we have better facilities elsewhere but might suit such a celebration.

Some things really are out of order.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange