Just when it looked as if we might be able to get a principled and consistent socialist candidate who supports trade union policies onto the ballot paper in the Labour leadership election – this happens!
I remember voting for Michael Meacher once before – more than twenty years ago, but he simply fails to excite or enthuse me as a standard bearer for the left. I hope he thinks again – and backs UNISON member John McDonnell the socialist candidate for Labour Leader.
John's campaign offers a way to put union priorities firmly on the political agenda - which is why I think it is important that all trade unionists get involved in the campaign and the debate which it can inspire.
Update on Thursday evening – this was as predictable as it is sad! However with one of only two MPs who accompanied Michael Meacher at his campaign launch announcing that he won’t vote for him you do have to hope that he will see sense and stand aside.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
LGPS "a good deal"???
I’ll write up my full report of yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC later, but I think it is worth mentioning right away the gist of the discussion on the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The Head of Local Government reported back on the detail of discussions with the Government during the current consultation period, and confirmed that proposals to attack redundancy entitlements were to be dropped.
There has as yet been no movement on the question of contributions from part time employees, although the Equal Opportunities Commission have now weighed in on the side of the unions (which, we were told, effectively means on the side of UNISON as it is UNISON that is making all the running and doing all the work in the discussions).
However, on the question of protection of the rights of those who have lost out with the abolition of the “Rule of 85” our objective was described simply in terms of increasing protection and, it was reported that an extension of protection in full to all those who will turn 60 by April 2020 “would be a minimum for us.”
I think it is fair to say that no UNISON body has ever agreed that this is any sort of bottom line and I, for one, was a little angry. I expressed my view that if the final settlement of the LGPS dispute was on the basis of 2020 then this would have been a defeat – in effect we would have failed to achieve protection for the younger half of the scheme membership when that was precisely the issue on which we mobilised support for strike action last March.
This argument, and similar points put by colleagues on the NEC including John McDermott, Glenn Kelly and Roger Bannister drew two lines of response. On the one hand there were those who said that there was no “appetite” for further industrial action amongst the membership. Chris Tansley said that this was the view in Nottinghamshire amongst local government workers, whilst Gerry Gallagher reported that no police staff branches want to take further action and Stephen Mead indicated similar views amongst members in Higher Education.
Dave Prentis, on the other hand, offered a more upbeat route to a similar conclusion. He said that he was proud of the achievements of our negotiators and that the “deal” on the LGPS (i.e. the current proposals) was the best deal done for any of the public service pension schemes in the last three years.
So now we can see the shape of debate at the 6 March Special Conference. Those of us who think that we should be fighting for LGPS members to be treated no less favourably than members of other public service pension schemes will be told, on the one hand, that members do not want to fight on this issue and, on the other, that we are disgracefully undermining our negotiators and our Union by failing to laud the great achievements reflected in the proposals for the “new look” LGPS.
Of course there are significant positive aspects of the “new look” LGPS. The retention of a final salary scheme with improved accrual is a good thing. However it does seem to me that it would be less than honest to dress up as a victory an outcome which falls well short of the equitable treatment for current scheme members which has been a central demand.
Equally we have to accept that not all members are necessarily going to be gung ho for further strike action. Indeed it is never easy to persuade members to make the sacrifice of strike action. However, members were mobilised on a massive scale on 28 March last year. UNISON is more than capable of mounting the vigorous campaign amongst our own membership which would be required to secure support for the further substantial strike action which can win fair treatment for LGPS members.
The Kirklees branch have very sensibly arranged a fringe meeting on the evening of 5 March at which delegates from branches whose members do want to continue the struggle to defend pension rights can discuss how we go forward. This dispute needs to be put into the hands of the membership.
The Head of Local Government reported back on the detail of discussions with the Government during the current consultation period, and confirmed that proposals to attack redundancy entitlements were to be dropped.
There has as yet been no movement on the question of contributions from part time employees, although the Equal Opportunities Commission have now weighed in on the side of the unions (which, we were told, effectively means on the side of UNISON as it is UNISON that is making all the running and doing all the work in the discussions).
However, on the question of protection of the rights of those who have lost out with the abolition of the “Rule of 85” our objective was described simply in terms of increasing protection and, it was reported that an extension of protection in full to all those who will turn 60 by April 2020 “would be a minimum for us.”
I think it is fair to say that no UNISON body has ever agreed that this is any sort of bottom line and I, for one, was a little angry. I expressed my view that if the final settlement of the LGPS dispute was on the basis of 2020 then this would have been a defeat – in effect we would have failed to achieve protection for the younger half of the scheme membership when that was precisely the issue on which we mobilised support for strike action last March.
This argument, and similar points put by colleagues on the NEC including John McDermott, Glenn Kelly and Roger Bannister drew two lines of response. On the one hand there were those who said that there was no “appetite” for further industrial action amongst the membership. Chris Tansley said that this was the view in Nottinghamshire amongst local government workers, whilst Gerry Gallagher reported that no police staff branches want to take further action and Stephen Mead indicated similar views amongst members in Higher Education.
Dave Prentis, on the other hand, offered a more upbeat route to a similar conclusion. He said that he was proud of the achievements of our negotiators and that the “deal” on the LGPS (i.e. the current proposals) was the best deal done for any of the public service pension schemes in the last three years.
So now we can see the shape of debate at the 6 March Special Conference. Those of us who think that we should be fighting for LGPS members to be treated no less favourably than members of other public service pension schemes will be told, on the one hand, that members do not want to fight on this issue and, on the other, that we are disgracefully undermining our negotiators and our Union by failing to laud the great achievements reflected in the proposals for the “new look” LGPS.
Of course there are significant positive aspects of the “new look” LGPS. The retention of a final salary scheme with improved accrual is a good thing. However it does seem to me that it would be less than honest to dress up as a victory an outcome which falls well short of the equitable treatment for current scheme members which has been a central demand.
Equally we have to accept that not all members are necessarily going to be gung ho for further strike action. Indeed it is never easy to persuade members to make the sacrifice of strike action. However, members were mobilised on a massive scale on 28 March last year. UNISON is more than capable of mounting the vigorous campaign amongst our own membership which would be required to secure support for the further substantial strike action which can win fair treatment for LGPS members.
The Kirklees branch have very sensibly arranged a fringe meeting on the evening of 5 March at which delegates from branches whose members do want to continue the struggle to defend pension rights can discuss how we go forward. This dispute needs to be put into the hands of the membership.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Defending the NHS without blinkers
It’s good to see Dave Prentis writing in the Morning Star this morning, promoting the activities on 3 March being organised by NHS Together.
Everyone who can should support one of the many local events which are being organised around the country on 3 March by the unprecedented coalition of all NHS unions.
However, Dave isn’t giving the whole picture when he says – in support of the events of 3 March that “Gone is the blinkered view that London is the only place to be if you want to protest. A demo-fatigued capital is being given a rest in favour of vibrant, local, inclusive events that are easy for people to get to and where families and local people can come together to make their voices heard.”
This really is a false dichotomy. There is no choice between local action and national events if we want to save our NHS – or mount any campaign to influence Government policy. We manifestly need both.
Indeed, Dave Prentis reported to the UNISON NEC in October that it was intended that there would be a national demonstration early in 2007 following on from the NHS Together lobby of Parliament on 1 November last year.
To quote from our website; “the lobby will kick off a winter of campaigning, leading to a national demonstration in February next year, the NEC heard.”
Plans for the national demonstration were abandoned because of a poor response to consultation with other Unions and within UNISON. We should be honest with ourselves that this was a setback – it means we have more work to do to get the campaign to where we want it to be. It does not mean that we are no longer in favour of national demonstrations!
The inevitably uneven nature of the crisis affecting our health service does make it difficult to mobilise for national action in every area – but if we seriously want to make the Government change course then part of what we need to do is march in our thousands down Whitehall. A national demonstration is not a “be all and end all”, but it will be part of a successful campaign.
That’s not a blinkered view, it is the view that was put to the UNISON NEC by our General Secretary last year. The Greater London Regional Council is to put a proposal for a national demonstration to UNISON’s National Delegate Conference in June. Let’s hope that the 3 March helps us build up a campaign which really can shift the Government.
Everyone who can should support one of the many local events which are being organised around the country on 3 March by the unprecedented coalition of all NHS unions.
However, Dave isn’t giving the whole picture when he says – in support of the events of 3 March that “Gone is the blinkered view that London is the only place to be if you want to protest. A demo-fatigued capital is being given a rest in favour of vibrant, local, inclusive events that are easy for people to get to and where families and local people can come together to make their voices heard.”
This really is a false dichotomy. There is no choice between local action and national events if we want to save our NHS – or mount any campaign to influence Government policy. We manifestly need both.
Indeed, Dave Prentis reported to the UNISON NEC in October that it was intended that there would be a national demonstration early in 2007 following on from the NHS Together lobby of Parliament on 1 November last year.
To quote from our website; “the lobby will kick off a winter of campaigning, leading to a national demonstration in February next year, the NEC heard.”
Plans for the national demonstration were abandoned because of a poor response to consultation with other Unions and within UNISON. We should be honest with ourselves that this was a setback – it means we have more work to do to get the campaign to where we want it to be. It does not mean that we are no longer in favour of national demonstrations!
The inevitably uneven nature of the crisis affecting our health service does make it difficult to mobilise for national action in every area – but if we seriously want to make the Government change course then part of what we need to do is march in our thousands down Whitehall. A national demonstration is not a “be all and end all”, but it will be part of a successful campaign.
That’s not a blinkered view, it is the view that was put to the UNISON NEC by our General Secretary last year. The Greater London Regional Council is to put a proposal for a national demonstration to UNISON’s National Delegate Conference in June. Let’s hope that the 3 March helps us build up a campaign which really can shift the Government.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
UNISON MP backs GMB strikers
I’m glad to see John McDonnell MP, UNISON member and Labour leadership contender, piling in behind striking GMB members in Enfield.
Seventy, mostly North African migrant workers who are members of GMB Union and who work for National Car Parks (NCP) on the parking enforcement contract in Enfield held a third day of six days of strike action on Saturday 17th February 2007 - and organised a stall in Enfield town centre to lobby residents over the NCP's refusal to recognise GMB for bargaining on pay and conditions.
John McDonnell supported the strikers in person last Wednesday and reported on his blog that “support for the strike was 100% solid - the workers had voted 100% for strike action on an 85% turnout - and this was evident in the great atmosphere of solidarity on the picket line.”
We need unity between different trade unions to take on anti-union employers, and I wish the GMB members good luck in fighting for their rights.
Seventy, mostly North African migrant workers who are members of GMB Union and who work for National Car Parks (NCP) on the parking enforcement contract in Enfield held a third day of six days of strike action on Saturday 17th February 2007 - and organised a stall in Enfield town centre to lobby residents over the NCP's refusal to recognise GMB for bargaining on pay and conditions.
John McDonnell supported the strikers in person last Wednesday and reported on his blog that “support for the strike was 100% solid - the workers had voted 100% for strike action on an 85% turnout - and this was evident in the great atmosphere of solidarity on the picket line.”
We need unity between different trade unions to take on anti-union employers, and I wish the GMB members good luck in fighting for their rights.
Equal Pay on the telly but not at UNISON Conference?
I can’t remember who it was who once described UNISON Conference socials as being, by and large, like a bad family wedding. Our Union is now taking on more of the characteristics of a difficult family get together in that there are more and more topics which just must not be mentioned.
One – of course – is the Labour leadership. That’s because there are some who want to offer tacit support to Gordon Brown (in return for the same “influence” which has served us so well under the current Prime Minister) whilst at the same time maintaining our support for progressive UNISON policies which are poles apart from the policy agenda which would be supported by a Prime Minister Brown. Therefore no one may mention the words “John” and “McDonnell” in the same sentence in any submission to a UNISON Conference they hope to get on to the agenda.
The other great unmentionable topic is Equal Pay. I notice that the gremlins which afflict discussion of the topic of Equal Pay appear now to have afflicted the BBC website. After watching a reasonable report on the problems of implementing equal pay in local government on the Politics Show this afternoon I found the link to the story itself to be broken. (I have included it here in case it gets fixed).
Equal Pay is a major item for debate at every meeting of our National Executive Council and issues relating to Equal Pay are taking up the majority of the time of our senior national officials. However, the following advice has been issued to UNISON branches about discussing Equal Pay at Conferences;
“As you are aware, the Union, its dedicated activists and staff and other unions are now under challenge by a small number of no win no fee lawyers who are contesting the union’s equal pay strategy. The union and a number of named activists and staff now face over 1850 claims. The first case to be heard by a tribunal – involving the GMB union – was decided on 6 June 2006. The GMB was unsuccessful. The GMB have appealed the decision of the tribunal and the appeal is to be heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 12 and 13 February 2007. The EAT decision may have implications for UNISON as the claims made against UNISON arise out of similar facts as those in the GMB case.
As a result, it is crucial, now more than ever, that the union not allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda at conference pending the decision in relation to the GMB’s appeal. This is because the no win no fee lawyers are able to gain access to everything which is said in union forums and use this to further their claims against the union, our activists and staff. The union’s legal advice is that our defence of these claims and protection of the activists under attack may be seriously weakened if there are speeches impinging on current litigation. For this reason all SOCs are advised not to allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda. The legal position will however be urgently reviewed following the outcome of the GMB appeal.”
This advice is available to all on the UNISON website, but there’s not much more that I – as a member of the NEC – can tell you. I can refer to the updated guidance to branches on Equal Pay.
The guidance is useful – and the regular briefings at Regional level at which we share information between branches in different local authorities are also very helpful. But when the Coventry Branch set out to convene a meeting for branch representatives to discuss the implementation of Single Status, about which they have a long running industrial dispute they had to call it off.
To quote from the Coventry Branch site; “Whilst we regret that this meeting must now be pulled, we still believe that something needs to be done in order to resolve problems that branches are facing with single status. Both Dave Prentis and Heather Wakefield have agreed to meet with us therefore we would welcome any comments or concerns you have so we can put them forward. We would like to ask branches to email us with any experiences or general comments regarding the issues surrounding single status.”
Full marks to Coventry for taking an initiative. I hope that at Wednesday’s NEC meeting we shall have some idea of what is going on with the Allen –v- GMB case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that it will be possible to reconsider the advice that we cannot discuss Equal Pay issues in our democratic decision making machinery.
What if a case is appealed from the EAT to the Court of Appeal, or from there to the House of Lords, or even to Europe. It could be years before we abandon the self-denying ordinance and talk again about Equal Pay.
No one wants to help the no win no fee solicitors. Individual (or even group) litigation is no way to design a fair and equitable pay structure. The litigation against trade unions places the whole workforce in great difficulty, because it means that the only effective and democratic tools which we have built to defend our interests are placed in jeopardy.
However, trade unions have no way to decide our policies and practices other than by debate through our agreed democratic structures. We cannot leave it to unofficial websites to host the discussions and report on the disputes which should be reported officially.
On the Politics Show Phil Woolas, Minister for Local Government, just said that he was prepared to legislate to try to prevent litigation disrupting negotiated settlements on equal pay in local government. This follows a debate in the Commons on 8 February in which the Minister made the same point under determined questioning from Chris Mullin.
Woolas said;
“The important point to emphasise and to record in Hansard is that the Government do not rule out a legislative route, because we understand the point that my hon. Friend makes so powerfully about the unintended impacts of the collective bargaining agreement, which has been detrimental to some. We recognise the importance of the issue, and that the problem is not confined to one region. We are prepared to legislate if that is desirable, both in terms of the protection of collective agreements and in itself.”
My concern is this. How will UNISON decide what our view is on any proposals for legislation if we do not allow ourselves to discuss this topic in any of our decision making bodies?
One option would be to leave the decision making to a few wise souls at Mabledon Place – but look where that has got us in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme!
I hope to be in a position to report something more positive after Wednesday’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council.
One – of course – is the Labour leadership. That’s because there are some who want to offer tacit support to Gordon Brown (in return for the same “influence” which has served us so well under the current Prime Minister) whilst at the same time maintaining our support for progressive UNISON policies which are poles apart from the policy agenda which would be supported by a Prime Minister Brown. Therefore no one may mention the words “John” and “McDonnell” in the same sentence in any submission to a UNISON Conference they hope to get on to the agenda.
The other great unmentionable topic is Equal Pay. I notice that the gremlins which afflict discussion of the topic of Equal Pay appear now to have afflicted the BBC website. After watching a reasonable report on the problems of implementing equal pay in local government on the Politics Show this afternoon I found the link to the story itself to be broken. (I have included it here in case it gets fixed).
Equal Pay is a major item for debate at every meeting of our National Executive Council and issues relating to Equal Pay are taking up the majority of the time of our senior national officials. However, the following advice has been issued to UNISON branches about discussing Equal Pay at Conferences;
“As you are aware, the Union, its dedicated activists and staff and other unions are now under challenge by a small number of no win no fee lawyers who are contesting the union’s equal pay strategy. The union and a number of named activists and staff now face over 1850 claims. The first case to be heard by a tribunal – involving the GMB union – was decided on 6 June 2006. The GMB was unsuccessful. The GMB have appealed the decision of the tribunal and the appeal is to be heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 12 and 13 February 2007. The EAT decision may have implications for UNISON as the claims made against UNISON arise out of similar facts as those in the GMB case.
As a result, it is crucial, now more than ever, that the union not allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda at conference pending the decision in relation to the GMB’s appeal. This is because the no win no fee lawyers are able to gain access to everything which is said in union forums and use this to further their claims against the union, our activists and staff. The union’s legal advice is that our defence of these claims and protection of the activists under attack may be seriously weakened if there are speeches impinging on current litigation. For this reason all SOCs are advised not to allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda. The legal position will however be urgently reviewed following the outcome of the GMB appeal.”
This advice is available to all on the UNISON website, but there’s not much more that I – as a member of the NEC – can tell you. I can refer to the updated guidance to branches on Equal Pay.
The guidance is useful – and the regular briefings at Regional level at which we share information between branches in different local authorities are also very helpful. But when the Coventry Branch set out to convene a meeting for branch representatives to discuss the implementation of Single Status, about which they have a long running industrial dispute they had to call it off.
To quote from the Coventry Branch site; “Whilst we regret that this meeting must now be pulled, we still believe that something needs to be done in order to resolve problems that branches are facing with single status. Both Dave Prentis and Heather Wakefield have agreed to meet with us therefore we would welcome any comments or concerns you have so we can put them forward. We would like to ask branches to email us with any experiences or general comments regarding the issues surrounding single status.”
Full marks to Coventry for taking an initiative. I hope that at Wednesday’s NEC meeting we shall have some idea of what is going on with the Allen –v- GMB case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that it will be possible to reconsider the advice that we cannot discuss Equal Pay issues in our democratic decision making machinery.
What if a case is appealed from the EAT to the Court of Appeal, or from there to the House of Lords, or even to Europe. It could be years before we abandon the self-denying ordinance and talk again about Equal Pay.
No one wants to help the no win no fee solicitors. Individual (or even group) litigation is no way to design a fair and equitable pay structure. The litigation against trade unions places the whole workforce in great difficulty, because it means that the only effective and democratic tools which we have built to defend our interests are placed in jeopardy.
However, trade unions have no way to decide our policies and practices other than by debate through our agreed democratic structures. We cannot leave it to unofficial websites to host the discussions and report on the disputes which should be reported officially.
On the Politics Show Phil Woolas, Minister for Local Government, just said that he was prepared to legislate to try to prevent litigation disrupting negotiated settlements on equal pay in local government. This follows a debate in the Commons on 8 February in which the Minister made the same point under determined questioning from Chris Mullin.
Woolas said;
“The important point to emphasise and to record in Hansard is that the Government do not rule out a legislative route, because we understand the point that my hon. Friend makes so powerfully about the unintended impacts of the collective bargaining agreement, which has been detrimental to some. We recognise the importance of the issue, and that the problem is not confined to one region. We are prepared to legislate if that is desirable, both in terms of the protection of collective agreements and in itself.”
My concern is this. How will UNISON decide what our view is on any proposals for legislation if we do not allow ourselves to discuss this topic in any of our decision making bodies?
One option would be to leave the decision making to a few wise souls at Mabledon Place – but look where that has got us in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme!
I hope to be in a position to report something more positive after Wednesday’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
LGPS - the detailed impact on the individual
UNISON has produced an excellent ready reckoner which members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) can use to compare their pension entitlements under the proposed new LGPS. Check the relevant page on the website for guidance on using the ready reckoner.
This is a valuable resource but of course it does tend to make you look at the dispute from an individual rather than a collective perspective, as no socialist ever should (but of course I have…)
So if I have worked it out right this is what it means to me personally…
If I retire at 60 and choose to take the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled, my annual pension will be reduced by more than 10% for the rest of my life compared to what I would have had had I been protected.
If on the other hand I work until 65 I can earn the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled I will get a pension 4% higher than under the old scheme. I have to work until at least the age of 64 in order to be better off than I would have been prior to the abolition of the “Rule of 85”.
Of course I am old (well middle-aged). Were I a 20 year old who had started in local government on my eighteenth birthday I would stand to lose more than 20% of their pension on retirement at 60 under the new scheme, compared with what their entitlements would have been under the old scheme with the Rule of 85.
Current members of other public service pension schemes were protected and we aren’t being. If we settle for this we will be letting down our younger members in particular (including those as youthful as myself…)
Hands up again those who think this is a good deal?
This is a valuable resource but of course it does tend to make you look at the dispute from an individual rather than a collective perspective, as no socialist ever should (but of course I have…)
So if I have worked it out right this is what it means to me personally…
If I retire at 60 and choose to take the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled, my annual pension will be reduced by more than 10% for the rest of my life compared to what I would have had had I been protected.
If on the other hand I work until 65 I can earn the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled I will get a pension 4% higher than under the old scheme. I have to work until at least the age of 64 in order to be better off than I would have been prior to the abolition of the “Rule of 85”.
Of course I am old (well middle-aged). Were I a 20 year old who had started in local government on my eighteenth birthday I would stand to lose more than 20% of their pension on retirement at 60 under the new scheme, compared with what their entitlements would have been under the old scheme with the Rule of 85.
Current members of other public service pension schemes were protected and we aren’t being. If we settle for this we will be letting down our younger members in particular (including those as youthful as myself…)
Hands up again those who think this is a good deal?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Redundancy payments saved - maybe - so who cares about our pensions? (erm, well we do...)
Well it is good news that the Government are redrafting the LGPS Regulations to restore (with some caveats) entitlement to an unreduced pension if dismissed on redundancy grounds above age 55 (age 50 for current scheme members until 2010). As to the caveats, we shall wait and see...
This gratuitous assault upon the rights of older workers facing redundancy was an outrage. It was also an outrage which had not been sought by the employers. If we allow the withdrawal of this recent outrage to become justification for settling for a deal which fails to protect the pension rights of all scheme members we will be letting down the man who rightly said that;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
The deal offered at the Public Services Forum in October 2005 to the other public service schemes was a victory for a firm negotiating position adopted by those who simply weren't prepared to accept the "compromise" of protection for those who would turn 60 by 2018 when others were prepared to settle for that.
Let’s hear who says what at the Special Conference…
This gratuitous assault upon the rights of older workers facing redundancy was an outrage. It was also an outrage which had not been sought by the employers. If we allow the withdrawal of this recent outrage to become justification for settling for a deal which fails to protect the pension rights of all scheme members we will be letting down the man who rightly said that;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
The deal offered at the Public Services Forum in October 2005 to the other public service schemes was a victory for a firm negotiating position adopted by those who simply weren't prepared to accept the "compromise" of protection for those who would turn 60 by 2018 when others were prepared to settle for that.
Let’s hear who says what at the Special Conference…
Saturday, February 10, 2007
LGPS - 2020 is not enough!
I wish I had been wrong about this, but I have to point out that you read it here last year. The union side objectives in the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) appear in danger of shrinking before our eyes.
Expect any day now to start hearing from some in our Union that if we could only get protection of pension rights extended from those who will be 60 by 2016 to include all those who will be 60 by 2020 then that would be great.
You know what? It wouldn’t. If we accept that we will badly let down our members who took strike action in March.
The Government may be about to back off from an attack upon redundancy rights which the employers had never requested. But that is no reason for us to accept a worse deal on protection of pension rights than that which was offered to all other public service pension schemes!
I was unimpressed when the Service Group Executives agreed not to go ahead with a strike ballot last month. I am even less impressed by the continuing delay agreed last week.
Delay and timidity is justified as ever by a process of “consultation” intended to enable members to reflect back at the leadership the feelings of uncertainty which have been engendered by the doubtful tactics which have been the hallmark of the dispute to date.
The Special Conference on 6 March may be our last chance to take this dispute back for our members. The deadline for Emergency Motions is first thing on 28 February and the Service Group Executive meets on 27 February so if anyone in local government has a Branch Committee meeting on the evening of 27 February then please get in touch!
Expect any day now to start hearing from some in our Union that if we could only get protection of pension rights extended from those who will be 60 by 2016 to include all those who will be 60 by 2020 then that would be great.
You know what? It wouldn’t. If we accept that we will badly let down our members who took strike action in March.
The Government may be about to back off from an attack upon redundancy rights which the employers had never requested. But that is no reason for us to accept a worse deal on protection of pension rights than that which was offered to all other public service pension schemes!
I was unimpressed when the Service Group Executives agreed not to go ahead with a strike ballot last month. I am even less impressed by the continuing delay agreed last week.
Delay and timidity is justified as ever by a process of “consultation” intended to enable members to reflect back at the leadership the feelings of uncertainty which have been engendered by the doubtful tactics which have been the hallmark of the dispute to date.
The Special Conference on 6 March may be our last chance to take this dispute back for our members. The deadline for Emergency Motions is first thing on 28 February and the Service Group Executive meets on 27 February so if anyone in local government has a Branch Committee meeting on the evening of 27 February then please get in touch!
Defend the NHS on the 3 March
Everyone should be planning for how to maximise the impact of the day of activities to defend the NHS on Saturday 3 March.
What a shame that a downbeat approach to consultation produced the expected outcome so that the leadership of the various unions could decide not to go ahead with a national demonstration. So we have to make the most of the events which are being organised.
At the UNISON Greater London Regional Council AGM on 1 February only four delegates opposed a call for a national demonstration in defence of the NHS. That call will now go forward in the name of the Greater London Region to our National Delegate Conference. Our union needs a leadership that has the confidence to lead in a time of crisis - and to give a lead to the enormous tide of opposition to attacks on the NHS.
I was pleased that our Regional Council took the decision to call for a national demonstration, and look forward to debating this call with my opponent in the forthcoming NEC elections. I won’t mention the identity of the four delegates who disagreed with the decision, as I am sure that they were simply abiding by a branch mandate…
What a shame that a downbeat approach to consultation produced the expected outcome so that the leadership of the various unions could decide not to go ahead with a national demonstration. So we have to make the most of the events which are being organised.
At the UNISON Greater London Regional Council AGM on 1 February only four delegates opposed a call for a national demonstration in defence of the NHS. That call will now go forward in the name of the Greater London Region to our National Delegate Conference. Our union needs a leadership that has the confidence to lead in a time of crisis - and to give a lead to the enormous tide of opposition to attacks on the NHS.
I was pleased that our Regional Council took the decision to call for a national demonstration, and look forward to debating this call with my opponent in the forthcoming NEC elections. I won’t mention the identity of the four delegates who disagreed with the decision, as I am sure that they were simply abiding by a branch mandate…
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Only guilty of undermining our education system...
It must be good news for Des Smith that he won’t face charges under the “cash for honours” probe – no doubt others closer to Blair hope for the same outcome. It’s just a shame there is no law against recruiting private sponsors to run Academy schools and undermine comprehensive education, contrary to UNISON policy.
Because as far as that goes Mr Smith, and New Labour, are bang to rights.
Because as far as that goes Mr Smith, and New Labour, are bang to rights.
Monday, February 05, 2007
So, was it a good deal between the T&G and BA?
I blogged a while back asking if anyone could point me in the direction of a site where I could see what cabin crew in the TGWU employed by British Airways made of the settlement of the recent dispute.
The TGWU website is unequivocal and quotes several newspapers in support of the Union’s claim that the settlement is a good one.
Perhaps it is because the Indy isn’t quoted that they have today run a story suggesting that not all members are happy with the settlement. Only members may access the website of the TGWU section representing BA members – so I have no idea whether or not to believe the report in the Independent. Comments can be found in the blogosphere here and here. (The latter link comes with a health warning as it is a libertarian/anarchist site with a fair amount of ill-informed anti-union ranting…)
We need more opportunities for debate between rank and file members of different trade unions if activists in one union are to have a real understanding of what is going on in another, which is why I was so pleased when the RMT sponsored the launch of the new National Shop Stewards Network. Without an organised rank and file movement across the various trade unions we will never mobilise our collective strength as effectively as we might.
The TGWU website is unequivocal and quotes several newspapers in support of the Union’s claim that the settlement is a good one.
Perhaps it is because the Indy isn’t quoted that they have today run a story suggesting that not all members are happy with the settlement. Only members may access the website of the TGWU section representing BA members – so I have no idea whether or not to believe the report in the Independent. Comments can be found in the blogosphere here and here. (The latter link comes with a health warning as it is a libertarian/anarchist site with a fair amount of ill-informed anti-union ranting…)
We need more opportunities for debate between rank and file members of different trade unions if activists in one union are to have a real understanding of what is going on in another, which is why I was so pleased when the RMT sponsored the launch of the new National Shop Stewards Network. Without an organised rank and file movement across the various trade unions we will never mobilise our collective strength as effectively as we might.
Calls for Blair to go straight?
I see from today’s Grauniad that an unnamed backbencher calls for the Prime Minister to go straight after the May elections.
That seems a little unfair as it seems to assume he will be found guilty of some misdeed and have to go straight upon his subsequent release.
Still at least his mate John will press ahead with privatisation of the criminal justice system so he can enjoy both competitive incarceration and rehabilitation should it come to that.
Of course, if I have misread the punctuation and the comment is simply about the timing of Blair’s departure then I would simply observe that the Labour Party won’t benefit from that unless we also see a change of direction.
That seems a little unfair as it seems to assume he will be found guilty of some misdeed and have to go straight upon his subsequent release.
Still at least his mate John will press ahead with privatisation of the criminal justice system so he can enjoy both competitive incarceration and rehabilitation should it come to that.
Of course, if I have misread the punctuation and the comment is simply about the timing of Blair’s departure then I would simply observe that the Labour Party won’t benefit from that unless we also see a change of direction.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
The scandal in the papers and the real scandal
I read it at Dave’s Part rather than in the News of the World but I still learned that one school of thought is that there could be charges in the “cash for honours” inquiry. Another view, in the Observer, seems to emanate from Downing Street and is that the police inquiry is unnecessarily prolonged.
For once I can see the Blairite point of view. This is a bit of a sideshow. The real scandal is the wholesale privatisation of health, of housing, of education – and the hijacking of the party of the left by advocates of right wing policies.
Compared with all this damage to our Party and our movement the suggestion that the Government might flog off the odd peerage seems pretty small beer.
I can’t help feeling it must be time for the trade unions to punch our weight with the New Labour Government. Some of our fellow trade unions seem to have the right idea. We need more politicians who will support our unions.
For once I can see the Blairite point of view. This is a bit of a sideshow. The real scandal is the wholesale privatisation of health, of housing, of education – and the hijacking of the party of the left by advocates of right wing policies.
Compared with all this damage to our Party and our movement the suggestion that the Government might flog off the odd peerage seems pretty small beer.
I can’t help feeling it must be time for the trade unions to punch our weight with the New Labour Government. Some of our fellow trade unions seem to have the right idea. We need more politicians who will support our unions.
Support the rights of agency workers
It is good to see UNISON supporting The Temporary Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Bill. Agency workers need improved legal rights – and clarity about their legal position. According to the TUC on average an agency worker earns about 70p for every pound that a permanent worker earns for doing the same job. That’s what the employers can get away with when the legal status of workers is uncertain.
The problem is that our leadership seem keen to back Gordon Brown to replace Tony Blair – and Gordon is on the record in support of flexible labour forces – the acceptable code for this sort of exploitation. (Mind you he seems not to favour competition for one job in particular – of course I think UNISON would do better to encourage that competition!)
There are a number of legal changes we need – starting with the Trade Union Freedom Bill – and Gordon Brown will offer us none of what we need. Mind you, if he gets to be Prime Minister it looks increasingly likely he will be a temp…
The problem is that our leadership seem keen to back Gordon Brown to replace Tony Blair – and Gordon is on the record in support of flexible labour forces – the acceptable code for this sort of exploitation. (Mind you he seems not to favour competition for one job in particular – of course I think UNISON would do better to encourage that competition!)
There are a number of legal changes we need – starting with the Trade Union Freedom Bill – and Gordon Brown will offer us none of what we need. Mind you, if he gets to be Prime Minister it looks increasingly likely he will be a temp…
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Member-led trade unionism
Rule B2.2 in the UNISON Rule Book says that one of our aims and objectives is;
“To promote and establish a member-led union and to carry out and fulfil decisions made by members in a spirit of unity and accountability.”
I just like to remind myself of that from time to time :)
“To promote and establish a member-led union and to carry out and fulfil decisions made by members in a spirit of unity and accountability.”
I just like to remind myself of that from time to time :)
Regional Council AGM
I won't be posting tomorrow as I will be busy with a number of matters including the Annual General Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council. I hope for a well attended meeting with comradely and constructive debate.
It is a shame that we have not had a quorum at a meeting of our Regional Council since the last AGM, particularly as that was the best attended Regional Council meeting we had ever had. I hope we have a similarly large turnout tomorrow, and that those attending can be persuaded to remain engaged with our policy making machinery throughout the year.
It is a shame that we have not had a quorum at a meeting of our Regional Council since the last AGM, particularly as that was the best attended Regional Council meeting we had ever had. I hope we have a similarly large turnout tomorrow, and that those attending can be persuaded to remain engaged with our policy making machinery throughout the year.
Black Members seats on the UNISON NEC
The Tuesday meeting of UNISON's Development and Organisation Committee has agreed to recommend that the NEC proposes amendments to Rule to create Black Members' seats on our NEC.
The Committee had previously considered the results of consultation on the role of the four NEC members who hold the “additional members” seats created in 2000, and agreed the recommendations of a report which proposes to change the title of these posts to “Black Members seats”. By law these seats cannot be restricted to black members only and will be open to all members, but the holders of the seats will have a brief to promote issues of concerns to our black members in particular.
The meeting agreed the recommendations of the report with one slight amendment following clarification that some of the inconsistencies in the proposals were necessary in order to comply with the law. This will lead to an NEC Rule Amendment to this year’s Conference, so that the changes will not take effect until the next NEC elections in 2009.
It is regrettable that the law does not allow trade unions to reserve seats on their NECs for black members. However it is a step forward that we are proposing to create Black Members seats on the highest Committee in the Union.
The Committee had previously considered the results of consultation on the role of the four NEC members who hold the “additional members” seats created in 2000, and agreed the recommendations of a report which proposes to change the title of these posts to “Black Members seats”. By law these seats cannot be restricted to black members only and will be open to all members, but the holders of the seats will have a brief to promote issues of concerns to our black members in particular.
The meeting agreed the recommendations of the report with one slight amendment following clarification that some of the inconsistencies in the proposals were necessary in order to comply with the law. This will lead to an NEC Rule Amendment to this year’s Conference, so that the changes will not take effect until the next NEC elections in 2009.
It is regrettable that the law does not allow trade unions to reserve seats on their NECs for black members. However it is a step forward that we are proposing to create Black Members seats on the highest Committee in the Union.
UNISON Conference motions
The UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee agreed on Tuesday to recommend four motions to go to National Delegate Conference on the following topics;
UNISON wide equality scheme;
Migrant workers;
Organising and recruiting;
Education and Training.
Moz Greenshields (East Midlands) complained about the practice of tabling draft Conference motions on the day of Committee meetings. This inexcusable practice has been common for some years and I regret to report that the majority of NEC members seem perfectly happy to agree motions drafted by officers “on the nod”.
I proposed an amendment to the motion on migrant workers to restate our Conference policy, developed in and moved by the Greater London Region in 2005, in favour of an amnesty for undocumented workers. The officer responsible for the motion (Liane Venner) explained that the motion was meant to address organising rather than policy issues, but as I felt that the motion did include policy issues I pushed the amendment to a vote. This was lost.
Of course NEC Conference motions are open to amendment from branches but I regret that the NEC motion fails to restate an important Conference policy, the commitment to which in some quarters of our Union I have questioned following our consistent refusal to put our policy to the TUC Congress in the past two years.
The Committee structure of the NEC - and the way in which motions (all of which are drafted by officers at Mabledon Place) notionally emerge from the Committees to go before the NEC can mean that topics which are relevant to the briefs of more than one main Committee do not get dealt with in a very satisfactory way.
In this case, the question of how to organise migrant workers and the question of what policy demands to make of Government are linked very closely. I personally hope that branches can use their right to amend motions to restore this link if the full NEC fails to do so.
UNISON wide equality scheme;
Migrant workers;
Organising and recruiting;
Education and Training.
Moz Greenshields (East Midlands) complained about the practice of tabling draft Conference motions on the day of Committee meetings. This inexcusable practice has been common for some years and I regret to report that the majority of NEC members seem perfectly happy to agree motions drafted by officers “on the nod”.
I proposed an amendment to the motion on migrant workers to restate our Conference policy, developed in and moved by the Greater London Region in 2005, in favour of an amnesty for undocumented workers. The officer responsible for the motion (Liane Venner) explained that the motion was meant to address organising rather than policy issues, but as I felt that the motion did include policy issues I pushed the amendment to a vote. This was lost.
Of course NEC Conference motions are open to amendment from branches but I regret that the NEC motion fails to restate an important Conference policy, the commitment to which in some quarters of our Union I have questioned following our consistent refusal to put our policy to the TUC Congress in the past two years.
The Committee structure of the NEC - and the way in which motions (all of which are drafted by officers at Mabledon Place) notionally emerge from the Committees to go before the NEC can mean that topics which are relevant to the briefs of more than one main Committee do not get dealt with in a very satisfactory way.
In this case, the question of how to organise migrant workers and the question of what policy demands to make of Government are linked very closely. I personally hope that branches can use their right to amend motions to restore this link if the full NEC fails to do so.
UNISON's Review of Structures
The first, and major, item was a discussion at Tuesday's meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee was of the report of the working group on the review of our branch and service group structures set up in response to the decision of Conference 2005. This working group has been engaged in extensive consultation and the Chair, Sue Highton, urged us to accept the recommendations of the report, which was introduced by the officer who had led this work. Liane Venner.
The report, which will now be put to the National Executive Council on 21 February for submission to Conference this summer makes a number of recommendations, including;
A revised scheme for branches under Rule G1.2;
Flexibility to allow branches to participate in more than one Region or Service Group;
A review of the allocation of resources to branches and Regions;
Annual assessments of branch organisation in each Region;
A review of the role of “sectors” within and between Service Groups;
A review to enhance cross service-group working;
Further consultation about structures for Further Education, Community and Voluntary Sector, and Private Sector members;
Further consultation on Service Group structures, focusing on Energy, Transport, Water and Environment Service Groups;
Rule amendments dealing with the definition of “sectors” in Rule Q and to govern cross service-group sectors in Rule D3.7.
Liane Venner gave a full introduction to the report. Glenn Kelly (representing Local Government) expressed some concerns about how some of the recommendations could be viewed by branches. I expressed some similar concerns and suggested some possible amendments to address these. John Jones (representing Water and Environment) expressed concern about the recommendation to review Service Group structures. Moz Greenshields (from the East Midlands Region) made the obvious but necessary point that the D&O Committee had never itself debated this subject, since it had agreed to defer discussion pending consultation and was now being presented with recommendations as a fait accompli. (I regret that this is not uncommon on the NEC!) Liane responded to the debate with a thorough defence of the recommendations of the report.
I decided to push just one amendment to the vote, and urged the Committee to agree that the review of resource allocation should include all resources, including those allocated to HQ, not just those allocated to branches and Regions. Bob Oram (from the North West Region) who chairs the NEC Staffing Committee objected to this proposed amendment on the grounds that the Staffing Committee is already undertaking Regional staffing reviews. The long standing view of the NEC is that staffing matters should not be discussed at National Delegate Conference, although this view is not supported by our Rule Book. In the event a majority of the Committee supported the recommendations of the working party as drafted by officers. Glenn Kelly also proposed some amendments which were rejected, although his suggestion that one of the Rule Amendments was inadequate was “taken away” for further consideration prior to the forthcoming NEC meeting.
The recommendations of the report will be put to Conference and branches will be able to move amendments to the recommendations. Branches may wish to timetable discussion on this report between the publication of the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference and the deadline for amendments.
Since circulating this report to London Region branches it has been pointed out to me by my friend and comrade Jean Geldart, who was a member of the working party, that the lay working party did make a number of amendments to the original officer recommendations. Overall the report is a step forward, but that’s not to say that branches shouldn’t consider whether they can improve upon its recommendations!
Don't mention the Labour leadership...!
I was intending to write my full report from Tuesday’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee just now – but as that was a meeting with a heavy and important agenda I think I shall leave it until later.
I will mention now just one surreal moment from that meeting, which I also mentioned later in the evening to the well attended meeting of trade unionists supporting John McDonnell’s campaign for the Labour leadership.
As previously reported on this blog the UNISON Greater London Regional Secretary had sought to rule out of order a sensible and inoffensive motion from the St Mary’s Paddington Health Branch which had been submitted to the UNISON Greater London Regional Council. This motion simply asked the NEC of the Union to encourage our Labour Link Committee (which has sole responsibility for administration of the relevant section of our political fund) to seek a candidate for Labour Leader who would support UNISON policies.
After some debate at the Regional Committee, including a meeting being closed early by the Chair, the Regional Secretary agreed to seek national guidance on the interpretation of the Union’s rules.
Therefore a reference was made to the Chair of the D&O Committee of the NEC who generally exercises this responsibility on behalf of the NEC. The Chair, recognising that there was a Committee meeting at the right time to consider this question referred the matter to the Committee as a whole.
I argued that the sensible motion from a branch with a commitment to fighting for socialist policies in the Labour Party should be seen as competent for discussion by the whole of UNISON’s membership. Sadly the only person to support me was a paid up member of the Socialist Party – my old friend Glen Kelly, about whom I agree with many things, but not the Labour Party!
This was a surreal moment. The lone ultra-leftist, who does not support the Labour Party, was joining me to criticise an ill-advised attempt to limit debate which can only harm our relationship with the Labour Party, whilst those ostensibly in support of our relationship with the Labour Party were backing a decision which places that relationship in jeopardy!
So the relevant Committee of the NEC has spoken. UNISON’s membership as a whole may not disuss the Labour leadership. That is to be left to the Labour Link.
Well, this would be the same Labour Link that has just omitted a picture of the only declared candidate for Labour Leader from a “rogues gallery” of other contenders for Leader and Deputy Leader?
Yes. It would. UNISON Labour Link is one of the least effective and useful parts of our trade union. It is an embarrassment to those of us who are serious about defending and developing the vital link between trade unions and the Labour Party.
I look forward to hearing justifications from Labour Link Committee members, both Regionally and nationally, about why we should support Gordon Brown – since that appears to be their position. Not a single member of the National Labour Link Committee of UNISON has yet expressed a clear opinion to me on this subject however.
I suppose I can see why there might be an interest in avoiding debate…
I will mention now just one surreal moment from that meeting, which I also mentioned later in the evening to the well attended meeting of trade unionists supporting John McDonnell’s campaign for the Labour leadership.
As previously reported on this blog the UNISON Greater London Regional Secretary had sought to rule out of order a sensible and inoffensive motion from the St Mary’s Paddington Health Branch which had been submitted to the UNISON Greater London Regional Council. This motion simply asked the NEC of the Union to encourage our Labour Link Committee (which has sole responsibility for administration of the relevant section of our political fund) to seek a candidate for Labour Leader who would support UNISON policies.
After some debate at the Regional Committee, including a meeting being closed early by the Chair, the Regional Secretary agreed to seek national guidance on the interpretation of the Union’s rules.
Therefore a reference was made to the Chair of the D&O Committee of the NEC who generally exercises this responsibility on behalf of the NEC. The Chair, recognising that there was a Committee meeting at the right time to consider this question referred the matter to the Committee as a whole.
I argued that the sensible motion from a branch with a commitment to fighting for socialist policies in the Labour Party should be seen as competent for discussion by the whole of UNISON’s membership. Sadly the only person to support me was a paid up member of the Socialist Party – my old friend Glen Kelly, about whom I agree with many things, but not the Labour Party!
This was a surreal moment. The lone ultra-leftist, who does not support the Labour Party, was joining me to criticise an ill-advised attempt to limit debate which can only harm our relationship with the Labour Party, whilst those ostensibly in support of our relationship with the Labour Party were backing a decision which places that relationship in jeopardy!
So the relevant Committee of the NEC has spoken. UNISON’s membership as a whole may not disuss the Labour leadership. That is to be left to the Labour Link.
Well, this would be the same Labour Link that has just omitted a picture of the only declared candidate for Labour Leader from a “rogues gallery” of other contenders for Leader and Deputy Leader?
Yes. It would. UNISON Labour Link is one of the least effective and useful parts of our trade union. It is an embarrassment to those of us who are serious about defending and developing the vital link between trade unions and the Labour Party.
I look forward to hearing justifications from Labour Link Committee members, both Regionally and nationally, about why we should support Gordon Brown – since that appears to be their position. Not a single member of the National Labour Link Committee of UNISON has yet expressed a clear opinion to me on this subject however.
I suppose I can see why there might be an interest in avoiding debate…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)