I was shocked to hear last night that Newham’s off-the-wall Labour Council (which clearly demonstrates all the reasons why we were right as a UNISON to oppose elected Mayors) is pressing ahead with a disciplinary hearing in the case of Michael Gavan, about which I have blogged before. The hearing could be as little as a fortnight away.
Michael is the widely respected Branch Chair of Newham UNISON and his work over a number of years has been central to sustaining trade union organisation with a difficult and temperamental employer. UNISON members in Newham are rightly pressing ahead with a ballot for strike action.
Michael is quite clearly being victimised for his trade union work and while UNISON is balloting members for strike action we also need to maximise political pressure on Newham at the same time.
Those of us who are Labour Party members have a particular obligation to express our disgust to our Party colleagues in Newham. (I would normally say comrades, but no comrade of mine victimises a trade unionist for his union work!)
Those of you on Facebook please join the Defend Michael Gavan group which has just been set up – and get all your Facebook friends to do the same. Meanwhile in the world beyond cyberspace send messages of support to Newham UNISON and copy them to UNISON Regional Office at Congress House, Great Russell Street. (I have removed a hypertext link to the email address of the Regional Secretary at UNISON's request).
Whether or not there is a General Election in the next few weeks there will be one in the next few months. The Labour Party will expect finance and material support from UNISON – and (in my opinion, given that a Tory Government would be even worse) we ought probably to provide some. However, if a flagship Labour Council led by a high profile elected Mayor is set on destroying the career and livelihood of a hard working activist then, at least in Newham, no UNISON support should go to the Party.
Michael has strong support in the Region – it is up to the Regional Labour Link Committee to rise to the challenge of putting our Union first. I shall be asking, as an NEC member, that our Union pulls out all the stops to defend Michael.
Update on Monday - It’s good to see UNISON reporting on the fight against the victimisation of Michael Gavan of the Newham branch on our website. Don’t forget to join the Facebook group in Michael’s support!
Friday, October 05, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Any Other Business at the UNISON NEC
Towards the end of yesterday's NEC meeting a number of other matters were dealt with including the following;
The NEC has rearranged its meeting dates in order to reduce expenditure and also to reduce the amount of travelling done by NEC members (as part of our “Green” policy to reduce our carbon footprint) – I did not support this because I felt that proposals to reduce by one the number of NEC meetings in the year further reduced lay oversight of our Union;
The NEC received an update on the project to build a new Head Office building opposite Mabledon Place;
The Chair of the Staffing Committee reported on plans to reorganise our staff to promote the organising agenda, this has led to a dispute with one of the staff trade unions over the question of consultation and an indicative ballot is currently taking place but negotiations are continuing;
The NEC members for the South East Region pointed out that none of them had ever been asked to serve on an internal disciplinary panel and were advised that they ought to have expressed an interest (upon hearing this I promptly expressed an interest myself).
Finally, on a lighter note, we were all given UNISON NEC badges - and over lunch myself and some comrades began to turn our minds to the vexed question of when one might wear such a badge and if it is possible to wear the badge in a "personal capacity".
An informal working group is to be established to work on some guidelines on the wearing of badges and comments from UNISON members will be very welcome...
The NEC has rearranged its meeting dates in order to reduce expenditure and also to reduce the amount of travelling done by NEC members (as part of our “Green” policy to reduce our carbon footprint) – I did not support this because I felt that proposals to reduce by one the number of NEC meetings in the year further reduced lay oversight of our Union;
The NEC received an update on the project to build a new Head Office building opposite Mabledon Place;
The Chair of the Staffing Committee reported on plans to reorganise our staff to promote the organising agenda, this has led to a dispute with one of the staff trade unions over the question of consultation and an indicative ballot is currently taking place but negotiations are continuing;
The NEC members for the South East Region pointed out that none of them had ever been asked to serve on an internal disciplinary panel and were advised that they ought to have expressed an interest (upon hearing this I promptly expressed an interest myself).
Finally, on a lighter note, we were all given UNISON NEC badges - and over lunch myself and some comrades began to turn our minds to the vexed question of when one might wear such a badge and if it is possible to wear the badge in a "personal capacity".
An informal working group is to be established to work on some guidelines on the wearing of badges and comments from UNISON members will be very welcome...
Keep the NHS working - demonstrate on 3 November
The NEC received a report of campaigning work in relation to the National Health Service, including preparations for the demonstration on 3 November. In this regard I was interested to be forwarded a report by an NEC colleague who sits on the Health Service Group Executive. In this report the Health SGE had been told that there was little support for the demonstration in Greater London (which is contrary to the policy agreed almost unanimously at the last Regional Council Annual General Meeting).
There was some debate about what might happen to the demonstration in the event of a General Election being called. The Chair of the Policy Committee made clear that at present it was “full steam ahead” for the demonstration and that all branches should be organising to attend on Saturday 3 November. This is a citizenship issue and it is important that it is not left to our members in health to defend the health service (after all, all of us need the NHS from time to time!)
Because of legal limits on “third party” expenditure during an election period, there would be problems for UNISON if an election was called to take place shortly after 3 November. The President, Norma Stephenson, made clear that she expected that, should this arise, the Union would look to find ways in which the demonstration could continue to go ahead – since many branches had already booked transport and would be likely to turn up anyway!
Since funding for the demonstration is coming from the General Political Fund Committee, which under Rule is autonomous from the NEC as a whole, any branches who may wish to express a view about the importance of this demonstration going ahead may wish to know the membership of that Committee, which is as follows;
James Anthony
Sarah Bradfield
Jane Carolan
Graeme Horn
Maureen Le Marinel
Annette Mansell-Green – Co-Chair
Helen Rose
Alison Shepherd
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Chris Tansley – Co-Chair
Steve Warwick.
I supported the view that the demonstration should go ahead. If the expenditure on the demonstration had to count against money UNISON could spend during the General Election well, we would just have to cut back on support elsewhere!
The clear message from our President was to step up preparations for a really massive demonstration on 3 November.
There was some debate about what might happen to the demonstration in the event of a General Election being called. The Chair of the Policy Committee made clear that at present it was “full steam ahead” for the demonstration and that all branches should be organising to attend on Saturday 3 November. This is a citizenship issue and it is important that it is not left to our members in health to defend the health service (after all, all of us need the NHS from time to time!)
Because of legal limits on “third party” expenditure during an election period, there would be problems for UNISON if an election was called to take place shortly after 3 November. The President, Norma Stephenson, made clear that she expected that, should this arise, the Union would look to find ways in which the demonstration could continue to go ahead – since many branches had already booked transport and would be likely to turn up anyway!
Since funding for the demonstration is coming from the General Political Fund Committee, which under Rule is autonomous from the NEC as a whole, any branches who may wish to express a view about the importance of this demonstration going ahead may wish to know the membership of that Committee, which is as follows;
James Anthony
Sarah Bradfield
Jane Carolan
Graeme Horn
Maureen Le Marinel
Annette Mansell-Green – Co-Chair
Helen Rose
Alison Shepherd
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Chris Tansley – Co-Chair
Steve Warwick.
I supported the view that the demonstration should go ahead. If the expenditure on the demonstration had to count against money UNISON could spend during the General Election well, we would just have to cut back on support elsewhere!
The clear message from our President was to step up preparations for a really massive demonstration on 3 November.
Review of UNISON Conference 2007
Yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC considered the arrangements for next year's Annual Conference.
The NEC agreed to recommend to the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) the following points for consideration in their review of Conference;
Organising the agenda around “themed” debates was welcome and should continue;
The facility to organise briefings in Conference time, as had been done on equal pay this year, should continue;
Conference should close at 4pm on Friday.
I objected to the last two recommendations as I believe they tend to reduce the amount of time taken up by policy discussion and decision making at the sovereign body of our trade union. I was therefore part of the minority who opposed these recommendations.
Branches can contact their Region to ensure their views are fed into the SOC review of Conference - the price of democracy is of course eternal vigilance...
The NEC agreed to recommend to the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) the following points for consideration in their review of Conference;
Organising the agenda around “themed” debates was welcome and should continue;
The facility to organise briefings in Conference time, as had been done on equal pay this year, should continue;
Conference should close at 4pm on Friday.
I objected to the last two recommendations as I believe they tend to reduce the amount of time taken up by policy discussion and decision making at the sovereign body of our trade union. I was therefore part of the minority who opposed these recommendations.
Branches can contact their Region to ensure their views are fed into the SOC review of Conference - the price of democracy is of course eternal vigilance...
General Secretary's report to UNISON NEC
As always, the General Secretary gave a wide ranging report to yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC in order to cover items not already on the agenda. These included the following;
UNISON will be supporting Saturday’s demonstration in solidarity with the people of Burma, meeting at Millbank at 11am on Saturday 6 October;
Dave Prentis congratulated the Greater London Region on organising the “Slavery, Yesterday, Today but not Tomorrow” event on 17 September, which he had attended;
UNISON have established a telephone hotline to combat racism in the National Health Service;
The Police Community Support Officers in the North West unjustly criticised in the media over the tragic drowning of a child were UNISON members and UNISON was making complaints to the BBC and the Press Complaints Commission about the way they had been treated;
Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, had not won the election to be General Secretary of the Public Services International (PSI) and there were significant concerns about the way the election had been run, which UNISON would be considering;
In reporting from the TUC, the General Secretary mentioned the Fremantle dispute and urged support for the demonstration on Saturday 10 November – at which he said he would try to be in attendance;
It was reported that UNISON had supported the constitutional changes at Labour Party Conference on the basis that these could be reversed in two years time. This had been the position of all the trade unions organised through TULO (the Trade Union Labour Organisation). There was some unexplained amusement when I asked how UNISON actually voted on this at the Conference (perhaps one of our Conference delegates in the Region will be able to explain that!)
UNISON will be supporting Saturday’s demonstration in solidarity with the people of Burma, meeting at Millbank at 11am on Saturday 6 October;
Dave Prentis congratulated the Greater London Region on organising the “Slavery, Yesterday, Today but not Tomorrow” event on 17 September, which he had attended;
UNISON have established a telephone hotline to combat racism in the National Health Service;
The Police Community Support Officers in the North West unjustly criticised in the media over the tragic drowning of a child were UNISON members and UNISON was making complaints to the BBC and the Press Complaints Commission about the way they had been treated;
Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, had not won the election to be General Secretary of the Public Services International (PSI) and there were significant concerns about the way the election had been run, which UNISON would be considering;
In reporting from the TUC, the General Secretary mentioned the Fremantle dispute and urged support for the demonstration on Saturday 10 November – at which he said he would try to be in attendance;
It was reported that UNISON had supported the constitutional changes at Labour Party Conference on the basis that these could be reversed in two years time. This had been the position of all the trade unions organised through TULO (the Trade Union Labour Organisation). There was some unexplained amusement when I asked how UNISON actually voted on this at the Conference (perhaps one of our Conference delegates in the Region will be able to explain that!)
Latest on the LGPS
At yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC we received a report of developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
NEC debates public sector pay
The major discussion on public sector pay at yesterday's meeting of the UNISON NEC was of course about the local government pay dispute. We considered the unfortunate news that both GMB and TGWU-UNITE members had voted to accept the below-inflation pay increase. However, the point was made that PCS members in the civil service would be likely to take action alongside UNISON local government members.
One piece of good news relates to an administrative difficulty with the strike ballot which largely affects Greater London. A significant number of employers were not notified of the national strike ballot and our members with those employers are not included in the main ballot. However, it has now been agreed to run a secondary ballot for all the omitted employers with the same end date as the main ballot so that, subject to a “YES” vote in both ballots, all members can take action together.
I welcomed this news and was also one of those stressing the possibilities of joint action with PCS. I also expressed disappointment about the A5 strike leaflet, which could have been far better worded. We were assured that the letter from the General Secretary which will accompany the ballot paper is better. Other materials, including presentations and speakers notes are to be issued and branches need to organise meetings and bulletins to members now in order to maximise the turnout and the “YES” vote.
Some colleagues, including fellow London NEC members said that members were not enthusiastic about strike action. However, Dave Prentis, General Secretary said that UNISON had never had a national ballot go against a national recommendation since he had been General Secretary and that, whilst it would be difficult to win the ballot and the dispute, this was what we had to be committed to doing. He said that during the ballot period all officers and lay activists should be cancelling other meetings and getting out there to get the vote out. His encouragement is now online.
John Jones, NEC member representing Water and Environment, made a particular point of expressing the concerns of members in the Environment Agency that more had not been done to criticise the very poor pay offer made to them (at the same time as their Chief Executive was being rewarded with a fat bonus).
One piece of good news relates to an administrative difficulty with the strike ballot which largely affects Greater London. A significant number of employers were not notified of the national strike ballot and our members with those employers are not included in the main ballot. However, it has now been agreed to run a secondary ballot for all the omitted employers with the same end date as the main ballot so that, subject to a “YES” vote in both ballots, all members can take action together.
I welcomed this news and was also one of those stressing the possibilities of joint action with PCS. I also expressed disappointment about the A5 strike leaflet, which could have been far better worded. We were assured that the letter from the General Secretary which will accompany the ballot paper is better. Other materials, including presentations and speakers notes are to be issued and branches need to organise meetings and bulletins to members now in order to maximise the turnout and the “YES” vote.
Some colleagues, including fellow London NEC members said that members were not enthusiastic about strike action. However, Dave Prentis, General Secretary said that UNISON had never had a national ballot go against a national recommendation since he had been General Secretary and that, whilst it would be difficult to win the ballot and the dispute, this was what we had to be committed to doing. He said that during the ballot period all officers and lay activists should be cancelling other meetings and getting out there to get the vote out. His encouragement is now online.
John Jones, NEC member representing Water and Environment, made a particular point of expressing the concerns of members in the Environment Agency that more had not been done to criticise the very poor pay offer made to them (at the same time as their Chief Executive was being rewarded with a fat bonus).
Equal Pay debate at the UNISON NEC
As has been the case for some time the longest debate of the day at yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC was on Equal Pay. The NEC received a confidential and legally privileged report covering a wide range of issues. In the light of continuing litigation against UNISON I cannot provide a fuller report here – but branches can expect to receive continuing guidance on this issue (and in the local government group branches in Greater London were of course invited to a briefing on Monday 1 October). Check the website regularly!
On the separate but related issue of finding resources to fund litigation around Equal Pay we were advised that there has been consultation with Regional Convenors and that a working group was to be established, following which it was likely that there would be presentations to Regional Committees (avid readers of this blog may recollect that this has been on the cards now for the best part of a year but that it has not yet happened).
On the separate but related issue of finding resources to fund litigation around Equal Pay we were advised that there has been consultation with Regional Convenors and that a working group was to be established, following which it was likely that there would be presentations to Regional Committees (avid readers of this blog may recollect that this has been on the cards now for the best part of a year but that it has not yet happened).
UNISON NEC debates recruitment
As always the NEC meeting yesterday began with a report on recruitment.
It was reported to the meeting that poor recruitment earlier in the year means that we face losing members for the first time. The problem is, as always, particularly acute in Greater London as we have the highest turnover of members. There are three elements to how the Union will try to turn this around;
An emergency package of measures has been put in place for each Region to focus on a small number of large branches with low membership density (and therefore the greatest potential for recruitment);
There is to be a continuing focus on encouraging branches to adopt an organising approach, based upon Branch Development Plans;
There will be a focus upon recruitment around the local government pay dispute.
The evidence of the past is that significant boosts to recruitment occur primarily around major disputes – although the NEC was told that it was estimated that “Challenge X” had led to the recruitment of several thousand members who would not otherwise have been recruited and that such efforts were therefore worthwhile. (It is incredibly difficult to assess the accuracy of such claims, as understanding trends in trade union membership is more an art than a science).
It was reported to the meeting that poor recruitment earlier in the year means that we face losing members for the first time. The problem is, as always, particularly acute in Greater London as we have the highest turnover of members. There are three elements to how the Union will try to turn this around;
An emergency package of measures has been put in place for each Region to focus on a small number of large branches with low membership density (and therefore the greatest potential for recruitment);
There is to be a continuing focus on encouraging branches to adopt an organising approach, based upon Branch Development Plans;
There will be a focus upon recruitment around the local government pay dispute.
The evidence of the past is that significant boosts to recruitment occur primarily around major disputes – although the NEC was told that it was estimated that “Challenge X” had led to the recruitment of several thousand members who would not otherwise have been recruited and that such efforts were therefore worthwhile. (It is incredibly difficult to assess the accuracy of such claims, as understanding trends in trade union membership is more an art than a science).
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Loneliness of the long distance NEC meeting...
Today's meeting of the UNISON NEC lasted about twice as long as meetings have been recently - so that's my excuse for not having written up my notes and posted them here yet ;p
Tomorrow morning seems like a good time right now!
Tomorrow morning seems like a good time right now!
UNISON NEC (no live blogging!)
This morning there's a meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council - I'll blog a report here after the event but won't be live blogging as the President has asked me not to.
No doubt we will be discussing the local government pay dispute (I expect some searching questions about fairly unimpressive strike leaflets - and of course mention will be made of the disappointing results of the TGWU-UNITE and GMB consultative ballots (the GMB result is a fairly massive vote to accept a real terms pay cut).
There will also be discussion about the forthcoming demonstration in defence (or is it celebration) of the National Health Service set for 3 November. I understand from an NEC comrade on the Policy Committee that the question "what will we do if there is a General Election on 8 November" is a questions which it is not permissible to ask!
Check back here later in the day and I'll have posted a report.
No doubt we will be discussing the local government pay dispute (I expect some searching questions about fairly unimpressive strike leaflets - and of course mention will be made of the disappointing results of the TGWU-UNITE and GMB consultative ballots (the GMB result is a fairly massive vote to accept a real terms pay cut).
There will also be discussion about the forthcoming demonstration in defence (or is it celebration) of the National Health Service set for 3 November. I understand from an NEC comrade on the Policy Committee that the question "what will we do if there is a General Election on 8 November" is a questions which it is not permissible to ask!
Check back here later in the day and I'll have posted a report.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Public sector pay - some will fight, some will sit this one out
According to an anonymous comment on the last post here UNITE-TGWU members in local government have voted in a consultative ballot to accept the employers' offer.
According to our anymous source; "TGWU members have voted 57% in favour of accepting the local government employers' pay offer. Turnout was 29%."
This would be a disappointment, but hardly a shock. A similar result from the GMB consultative ballot would be no big suprise. UNISON represents the majority of local government workers, the GMB represent a significant minority. UNITE-TGWU have membership in some authorities but are very much the third union in the local government workforce covered by the national negotiations. UNISON activists will be disappointed if we do not have the support of the other unions at the outset of this year's pay fight, but won't in the end allow minorities to dictate to the majority.
If you consult people on the basis that "this is the best we can get by negotiation and you'll have to take a lot of strike action if you want more" without at the same time offering a strategy to win through taking strike action then you won't get trade unionists willing to take action.
I would suggest that the result of the consultative ballot on health service pay in UNISON illustrates this point quite well.
On a day when PCS launched a strike ballot involving more than a quarter of a million civil service members and CWU served notice to Royal Mail for two rounds of 48 hour strike action scheduled to start next week, it is clear that there is scope for united public sector strike action over the Government's pay policy.
It won't be action across the whole of the public sector and it won't involve every union, but there are millions of us who could be mobilised - and if we are we could win and reverse the declining living standards of public sector workers.
According to our anymous source; "TGWU members have voted 57% in favour of accepting the local government employers' pay offer. Turnout was 29%."
This would be a disappointment, but hardly a shock. A similar result from the GMB consultative ballot would be no big suprise. UNISON represents the majority of local government workers, the GMB represent a significant minority. UNITE-TGWU have membership in some authorities but are very much the third union in the local government workforce covered by the national negotiations. UNISON activists will be disappointed if we do not have the support of the other unions at the outset of this year's pay fight, but won't in the end allow minorities to dictate to the majority.
If you consult people on the basis that "this is the best we can get by negotiation and you'll have to take a lot of strike action if you want more" without at the same time offering a strategy to win through taking strike action then you won't get trade unionists willing to take action.
I would suggest that the result of the consultative ballot on health service pay in UNISON illustrates this point quite well.
On a day when PCS launched a strike ballot involving more than a quarter of a million civil service members and CWU served notice to Royal Mail for two rounds of 48 hour strike action scheduled to start next week, it is clear that there is scope for united public sector strike action over the Government's pay policy.
It won't be action across the whole of the public sector and it won't involve every union, but there are millions of us who could be mobilised - and if we are we could win and reverse the declining living standards of public sector workers.
Bloggers block?
Apologies for the dearth of posts this week. Local industrial relations problems are taking up a fair bit of time and attention just now.
I am pleased to hear that colleagues in the Barnet branch have been pressing ahead with the continuing campaign against Fremantle (from whose Chief Executive I have heard nothing further...!)
Next week will be a busy week in UNISON so expect to read more frequent reports :)
I am pleased to hear that colleagues in the Barnet branch have been pressing ahead with the continuing campaign against Fremantle (from whose Chief Executive I have heard nothing further...!)
Next week will be a busy week in UNISON so expect to read more frequent reports :)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as...
I am afraid I haven’t been too well the last few days. Hence the lack of posts.
Mind you words fail me at the performance of the Unions in Bournemouth. Just as we are demonstrating how to use a contemporary resolution at Party Conference to shift the Government we are justifying having allowed Gordon Brown to prevent us ever doing it again.
How much more foolish can we be? (I really shouldn’t ask that question should I, as I won’t like the response…)
Just to be clear – there is no provision of any UNISON rule which would permit delay in the local government strike ballot in the event of a General Election, and there is no need for any further “consultation” or phone calls round to branches about past consultations.
Mind you words fail me at the performance of the Unions in Bournemouth. Just as we are demonstrating how to use a contemporary resolution at Party Conference to shift the Government we are justifying having allowed Gordon Brown to prevent us ever doing it again.
How much more foolish can we be? (I really shouldn’t ask that question should I, as I won’t like the response…)
Just to be clear – there is no provision of any UNISON rule which would permit delay in the local government strike ballot in the event of a General Election, and there is no need for any further “consultation” or phone calls round to branches about past consultations.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Defending Michael Gavan - defending our Union
I was very pleased this evening to attend the UNISON rally at the Stratford Picture House in support of victimised activist – and UNISON Newham Branch Chair – Michael Gavan.
I am not sure I have been on the same platform as Ken Loach before – he was there to introduce his excellent new film “It’s a Free World” and pledged his wholehearted support for Michael. Last time I saw Ken Loach at a UNISON event it was at the Ritzy in Brixton in aid of the Hillingdon hospital strikers!
This sort of innovative initiative is precisely what UNISON needs and it was good that victimised Manchester mental health nurse, Karen Reissman was at the meeting too. It was also good to see a representative of the UNISON Regional Council officers alongside Ken Loach on the platform!
As we move into a period of relatively greater industrial struggle we can anticipate further employer victimisation of activists, and we shall need to find every way we can to defend our brothers and sisters!
For those of you reading this who are - as I am - a Labour Party member, then you need to press your MP to support us on this and to put pressure on the Governnent
I am not sure I have been on the same platform as Ken Loach before – he was there to introduce his excellent new film “It’s a Free World” and pledged his wholehearted support for Michael. Last time I saw Ken Loach at a UNISON event it was at the Ritzy in Brixton in aid of the Hillingdon hospital strikers!
This sort of innovative initiative is precisely what UNISON needs and it was good that victimised Manchester mental health nurse, Karen Reissman was at the meeting too. It was also good to see a representative of the UNISON Regional Council officers alongside Ken Loach on the platform!
As we move into a period of relatively greater industrial struggle we can anticipate further employer victimisation of activists, and we shall need to find every way we can to defend our brothers and sisters!
For those of you reading this who are - as I am - a Labour Party member, then you need to press your MP to support us on this and to put pressure on the Governnent
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A tale of two picket lines (one today and one yet to come!)
This afternoon I attended a protest (not quite a picket line I think) of UNISON staff protesting against a lack of consultation by management within the Union with the staff trade union over proposals for change.
Neither the staff trade unions nor progressive forces within the lay structures wish to oppose constructive change in our Union, but we will not move forward by confrontation with the staff trade unions! I am awaiting an explanation from the Chair of the NEC staffing committee as to what is going on!
I was happy to have the opportunity to stand on a picket line with UNISON staff since we shall have further opportunities very soon. I hear that the UNISON industrial action committee has just agreed to ballot all our local government members for strike action over pay.
The UNISON staff pickets outside Congress House had a really good idea - a union account with the local cafe so that pickets can get tea and coffee!
UNISON local government activists take note!
Update on 20 September about the local government pay dispute – the decision on the local government strike ballot is being reported here, as follows;
"UNISON is to ask its 850,000 local government members whether they're prepared to take action over this year's low pay offer" – well, yes, obviously we will need a vigorous campaign for a “YES” vote based upon a strategy to win by taking action alongside PCS and other public sector workers.
Further update on the UNISON staff protest yesterday – the Chair of the Staffing Committee has kindly sent me a copy of a circular sent to all UNISON staff. He has asked me to keep it confidential to UNISON (as it has only been circulated to over a thousand staff…) so won’t blog the details here. He goes on to say;
“I understand you were supporting the 'dispute ' today.
I would have hoped you would be supporting the increase in staff we are seeking to employ in UNISON and the impetus this will give to our organising capabilities.”
Of course there need be no contradiction between supporting positive change in the Union and also supporting appropriate consultation with the staff trade unions – the leaflets being given out by the staff made clear that they have no principled opposition to the staffing changes being proposed.
I understand that a meeting will take place today and hope that a resolution can swiftly be found. We need all our energies for the local government pay dispute now!
Neither the staff trade unions nor progressive forces within the lay structures wish to oppose constructive change in our Union, but we will not move forward by confrontation with the staff trade unions! I am awaiting an explanation from the Chair of the NEC staffing committee as to what is going on!
I was happy to have the opportunity to stand on a picket line with UNISON staff since we shall have further opportunities very soon. I hear that the UNISON industrial action committee has just agreed to ballot all our local government members for strike action over pay.
The UNISON staff pickets outside Congress House had a really good idea - a union account with the local cafe so that pickets can get tea and coffee!
UNISON local government activists take note!
Update on 20 September about the local government pay dispute – the decision on the local government strike ballot is being reported here, as follows;
"UNISON is to ask its 850,000 local government members whether they're prepared to take action over this year's low pay offer" – well, yes, obviously we will need a vigorous campaign for a “YES” vote based upon a strategy to win by taking action alongside PCS and other public sector workers.
Further update on the UNISON staff protest yesterday – the Chair of the Staffing Committee has kindly sent me a copy of a circular sent to all UNISON staff. He has asked me to keep it confidential to UNISON (as it has only been circulated to over a thousand staff…) so won’t blog the details here. He goes on to say;
“I understand you were supporting the 'dispute ' today.
I would have hoped you would be supporting the increase in staff we are seeking to employ in UNISON and the impetus this will give to our organising capabilities.”
Of course there need be no contradiction between supporting positive change in the Union and also supporting appropriate consultation with the staff trade unions – the leaflets being given out by the staff made clear that they have no principled opposition to the staffing changes being proposed.
I understand that a meeting will take place today and hope that a resolution can swiftly be found. We need all our energies for the local government pay dispute now!
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Development and Organisation Committee report
Today I attended a meeting of the UNISON Development and Organisation Committee. Here are the edited highlights;
(right, that was the edited highlights, now for the report…)
We began with a report on amendments to UNISON’s objectives. This is clearly a hot topic for those who work in the organisation – although they had better work out as we apparently want to “re-profile” our staff, which sounds to me worryingly like compulsory plastic surgery!
As always the meeting then started properly with a report on recruitment. Recruitment figures this year are disappointing and the report before us concluded (as always) that we must try harder (anyone remember Boxer in Animal Farm?)
More positively we were assured that when (I don’t think it is if) the Industrial Action Committee tomorrow approves the national strike ballot in local government there will be targeted recruitment materials so we can make the most of an excellent opportunity. The Union is also looking to join the twenty first century with a facility to join online, although this will inevitably lead to more members paying direct debit (and therefore ending up in the wrong branches over time unless we can crack getting membership details updated regularly).
We also received a report on Learning and Organising (including the news that we will be bidding for money from the next tranche of the Union Learning Fund) and a report on “leadership development training” for members of the National Executive Council. Since this will cover, amongst other things, the vexed question of “collective responsibility” I doubt I shall be included in the first wave of NEC members to be developed as leaders. I shall try to be brave in the face of such disappointment.
The Committee heard the latest news about the RMS (that is the “Replacement Membership System” although we don’t call it that any more) – apparently in 2009 we will implement a new membership system (will it be called the RRMS???)
Frank Hont, Regional Secretary from the North West Region and former Chair of the Committee in his days as a lay activist, attended to report on the work underway to implement Conference decisions on the review of branch and service group structures. This is now going to be carried forward by named senior officials working to a small working group of NEC members and other leading lay activists. I sought and received assurances that there would actually be discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee as this work was carried forward and will let you know in due course what weight I have attached to those assurances.
We then received a report on the CASE management system, and were told that there is now enough information on the system for it to produce meaningful reports about the casework being undertaken by the Union at Regional level – we were invited to make suggestions about what reports and information we wanted to see and I would welcome suggestions from UNISON members to pass on to the relevant officials.
The Committee also received a report about the integration of the computer systems used by UNISON Welfare and the RMS – I was assured that confidential welfare information would not appear on the RMS.
A hardy perennial appeared in bloom as we received the first report on proportionality and fair representation at Conference – I shall return to this topic in greater length when we debate it (at greater length) in November. A worrying dip in the representation of black members at our Conference suggests to me that our current prescriptive approach is not delivering fair representation.
The Committee then received a bizarre report from officers advising us that even though the National Disabled Members Committee had not made a reference to us about a controversial decision of the National Disabled Members Conference we ought nevertheless to take a decision about the matter in hand. Happily we did not. The issue concerned extending the deaf members’ caucus within the Disabled Members self-organised group to include those who are hearing impaired.
I felt that we needed to be far more respectful of the decisions of a self-organised group than we were being invited to be and was happy that the decision was deferred.
If members of the self-organised group want to know what was said about their Conference decisions by an official please do get in touch!
Following a report about UNISON’s response to consultation on the legal changes required by ASLEF’s important European legal victory over the question of fascists in our unions, the Committee then turned to consider the cases of branches under Regional supervision.
It is positive that we are now receiving reports about this matter, but the fact that the Leeds local government branch remains under supervision attracted considerable adverse comment and with good cause. I remain perplexed at the suggestion that a branch under regional supervision could somehow have behaved in a way of which the Region disapproves and look forward to the full report which we were promised for the next meeting.
A longer debate then ensued on “Chairs action” around the decision of the Chair (and the Presidential team) to endorse contentious advice to health branches and activists that they ought not to campaign against (or I suppose for) the pay offer in the light of a decision by the Service Group Executive to make no recommendation.
Several members of the Committee explained at some length how daft it was to use the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines against – as we saw it – the spirit and the letter of the relevant Union Rules which safeguard the right to campaign. After a spirited defence of the “official” position from an official (who said that the Union should “speak with one voice”) one of the lay members of the Committee was finally shamed into supporting the position then endorsed by a majority, which is that the Committee noted what the Chair had done.
Any trade union that can only speak with “one voice” is a trade union that will not thrive and does not deserve to survive. Our Rules specifically defend the right to campaign to change policy and that must mean a right to express different views – I am astonished by the idea that our members will somehow be confused by the fact that there are differences of opinion in our Union and I am afraid that I was drawn into making disparaging remarks about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
I know – that’s no way to win friends and influence people at Mabledon Place…
Oh dear…
(right, that was the edited highlights, now for the report…)
We began with a report on amendments to UNISON’s objectives. This is clearly a hot topic for those who work in the organisation – although they had better work out as we apparently want to “re-profile” our staff, which sounds to me worryingly like compulsory plastic surgery!
As always the meeting then started properly with a report on recruitment. Recruitment figures this year are disappointing and the report before us concluded (as always) that we must try harder (anyone remember Boxer in Animal Farm?)
More positively we were assured that when (I don’t think it is if) the Industrial Action Committee tomorrow approves the national strike ballot in local government there will be targeted recruitment materials so we can make the most of an excellent opportunity. The Union is also looking to join the twenty first century with a facility to join online, although this will inevitably lead to more members paying direct debit (and therefore ending up in the wrong branches over time unless we can crack getting membership details updated regularly).
We also received a report on Learning and Organising (including the news that we will be bidding for money from the next tranche of the Union Learning Fund) and a report on “leadership development training” for members of the National Executive Council. Since this will cover, amongst other things, the vexed question of “collective responsibility” I doubt I shall be included in the first wave of NEC members to be developed as leaders. I shall try to be brave in the face of such disappointment.
The Committee heard the latest news about the RMS (that is the “Replacement Membership System” although we don’t call it that any more) – apparently in 2009 we will implement a new membership system (will it be called the RRMS???)
Frank Hont, Regional Secretary from the North West Region and former Chair of the Committee in his days as a lay activist, attended to report on the work underway to implement Conference decisions on the review of branch and service group structures. This is now going to be carried forward by named senior officials working to a small working group of NEC members and other leading lay activists. I sought and received assurances that there would actually be discussion at the Development and Organisation Committee as this work was carried forward and will let you know in due course what weight I have attached to those assurances.
We then received a report on the CASE management system, and were told that there is now enough information on the system for it to produce meaningful reports about the casework being undertaken by the Union at Regional level – we were invited to make suggestions about what reports and information we wanted to see and I would welcome suggestions from UNISON members to pass on to the relevant officials.
The Committee also received a report about the integration of the computer systems used by UNISON Welfare and the RMS – I was assured that confidential welfare information would not appear on the RMS.
A hardy perennial appeared in bloom as we received the first report on proportionality and fair representation at Conference – I shall return to this topic in greater length when we debate it (at greater length) in November. A worrying dip in the representation of black members at our Conference suggests to me that our current prescriptive approach is not delivering fair representation.
The Committee then received a bizarre report from officers advising us that even though the National Disabled Members Committee had not made a reference to us about a controversial decision of the National Disabled Members Conference we ought nevertheless to take a decision about the matter in hand. Happily we did not. The issue concerned extending the deaf members’ caucus within the Disabled Members self-organised group to include those who are hearing impaired.
I felt that we needed to be far more respectful of the decisions of a self-organised group than we were being invited to be and was happy that the decision was deferred.
If members of the self-organised group want to know what was said about their Conference decisions by an official please do get in touch!
Following a report about UNISON’s response to consultation on the legal changes required by ASLEF’s important European legal victory over the question of fascists in our unions, the Committee then turned to consider the cases of branches under Regional supervision.
It is positive that we are now receiving reports about this matter, but the fact that the Leeds local government branch remains under supervision attracted considerable adverse comment and with good cause. I remain perplexed at the suggestion that a branch under regional supervision could somehow have behaved in a way of which the Region disapproves and look forward to the full report which we were promised for the next meeting.
A longer debate then ensued on “Chairs action” around the decision of the Chair (and the Presidential team) to endorse contentious advice to health branches and activists that they ought not to campaign against (or I suppose for) the pay offer in the light of a decision by the Service Group Executive to make no recommendation.
Several members of the Committee explained at some length how daft it was to use the “Democracy in UNISON” guidelines against – as we saw it – the spirit and the letter of the relevant Union Rules which safeguard the right to campaign. After a spirited defence of the “official” position from an official (who said that the Union should “speak with one voice”) one of the lay members of the Committee was finally shamed into supporting the position then endorsed by a majority, which is that the Committee noted what the Chair had done.
Any trade union that can only speak with “one voice” is a trade union that will not thrive and does not deserve to survive. Our Rules specifically defend the right to campaign to change policy and that must mean a right to express different views – I am astonished by the idea that our members will somehow be confused by the fact that there are differences of opinion in our Union and I am afraid that I was drawn into making disparaging remarks about the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
I know – that’s no way to win friends and influence people at Mabledon Place…
Oh dear…
Monday, September 17, 2007
Industrial action committee to meet Wednesday
The decision of the UNISON NJC Committee to request an industrial action ballot has now been endorsed by the Service Group Executive for Local Government and will go forward to the Industrial Action Committee of the NEC.
I am afraid that I am not a member of that Committee having not been elected to it by my NEC colleagues – so there is no point lobbying me about this decision!
The Industrial Action Committee will have to choose whether to endorse the views of the elected representatives of our largest Service Group, reflecting the will of the Service Group Conference and offering an excellent opportunity to recruit and organise members around a fight against a below-inflation pay rise.
There may be those who feel that the cost of an industrial action ballot is a million pounds, that really our members ought to have been consulted for a third time on marginal changes to a poor offer, and that the job of union leadership is not to offer a decisive lead but rather a warm welcome to a change of tone at Number 10 Downing Street.
I shouldn’t think that the latter will hold sway, but the great thing about a lay led Union is that ordinary members like you and me get to make the decisions – and other ordinary members can express the views of our branches directly to the decision makers.
So here is the membership of the Industrial Action Committee in case you wish to contact them;
Sarah Barwick
Susan Brearley
Louise Couling
Emma Goodall
Moz Greenshields
Diana Leach
Angela Lynes (Chair)
Ann Macmillan Wood
Annette Mansell-Green
Stephen Mead (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Samantha Selon
Fiona Smith
Irene Stacey
Norma Stephenson
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Jean Thorpe
Roger Bannister
Jim Burnett
Mike Hayes
Colm Magee
Bob Oram
I am afraid that I am not a member of that Committee having not been elected to it by my NEC colleagues – so there is no point lobbying me about this decision!
The Industrial Action Committee will have to choose whether to endorse the views of the elected representatives of our largest Service Group, reflecting the will of the Service Group Conference and offering an excellent opportunity to recruit and organise members around a fight against a below-inflation pay rise.
There may be those who feel that the cost of an industrial action ballot is a million pounds, that really our members ought to have been consulted for a third time on marginal changes to a poor offer, and that the job of union leadership is not to offer a decisive lead but rather a warm welcome to a change of tone at Number 10 Downing Street.
I shouldn’t think that the latter will hold sway, but the great thing about a lay led Union is that ordinary members like you and me get to make the decisions – and other ordinary members can express the views of our branches directly to the decision makers.
So here is the membership of the Industrial Action Committee in case you wish to contact them;
Sarah Barwick
Susan Brearley
Louise Couling
Emma Goodall
Moz Greenshields
Diana Leach
Angela Lynes (Chair)
Ann Macmillan Wood
Annette Mansell-Green
Stephen Mead (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Samantha Selon
Fiona Smith
Irene Stacey
Norma Stephenson
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Jean Thorpe
Roger Bannister
Jim Burnett
Mike Hayes
Colm Magee
Bob Oram
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Lessons to learn from the RMT
Congratulations to my friend and comrade George Binette from the Camden UNISON Branch for his reasoned defence of Bob Crow and the RMT on today’s Observer letter page.
George makes the well-founded point that while commentators such as Will Hutton denounce Bob Crow as a dinosaur, the RMT are growing at a pace which far outshines that of most other trade unions.
For UNISON members the lesson that a combative approach to the defence of members interests is one which helps a trade union to grow is one which our leadership would do well to learn. (Incidentally, the RMT give full benefits from the point at which a member joins, which might give us pause for thought next time we debate Rule K at Conference?)
The major boosts in UNISON membership growth over the last decade have been around major national disputes on pay and pensions. Now that we are moving to strike action over local government pay we have an opportunity for further growth.
Let’s hope the Industrial Action Committee give us that opportunity!
George makes the well-founded point that while commentators such as Will Hutton denounce Bob Crow as a dinosaur, the RMT are growing at a pace which far outshines that of most other trade unions.
For UNISON members the lesson that a combative approach to the defence of members interests is one which helps a trade union to grow is one which our leadership would do well to learn. (Incidentally, the RMT give full benefits from the point at which a member joins, which might give us pause for thought next time we debate Rule K at Conference?)
The major boosts in UNISON membership growth over the last decade have been around major national disputes on pay and pensions. Now that we are moving to strike action over local government pay we have an opportunity for further growth.
Let’s hope the Industrial Action Committee give us that opportunity!
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Fremantle strikes on 20 September
Congratulations to Barnet UNISON for this excellent pictorial report of the visit of Fremantle activists to the TUC. The Fremantle dispute is very much still on – and back on the Labourstart website, as the Internet Service Provider has found the campaign not to be defamatory.
Good luck to the strikers for their next day of strike action on 20 September.
I thought I would share my correspondence with Fremantle Chief Executive, Carole Sawyer, to whom I wrote on 6 September as follows;
“Your conduct in cutting the pay of your workers, sacking Andrew Rogers and seeking to silence your critics is disgraceful.You are clearly not a fit person to be involved in the provision of vital public services to vulnerable people and I very much hope that you will have the decency to consider your position.”
She replied the following day;
“Thank you for your e-mail. Your concerns relate to misinformation and deliberately misleading information on the Labourstart and Unison web pages.
Specifically
Pay has not been cut – salaries have been frozen for up to 3 years at April 2007 levels
No changes have been made to the pensions – staff continue to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and we continue to make employer contributions as set by the actuary (currently over 20%)
The working week for ex LBB staff is unchanged at 36 hours full time equivalent
Occupational sick pay entitlement changed from April 2007 and is now up to 3 months at full pay
The necessary changes are to ensure that the future costs of the services can be met from the resources available. This protects both vulnerable service users and staff by ensuring the continuation of services. The Fremantle Trust is a registered charity (not a private company as alleged by Labourstart).
These are not easy decisions and we spent over a year consulting with staff and unions before any changes were made. Fremantle continues to offer an industry leading pay and benefits package – including enhanced payments for weekend, night and bank holiday working, generous occupational sick pay, protected pensions and pay rates well ahead of the industry norms.
With respect to Mr Rogers he was dismissed for gross misconduct after an extensive investigation and after the panel had spent 5 hours reviewing all the evidence (including that of Mr Rogers and his representative). There is an appeal process which I encourage Mr Rogers to follow – I am not prepared to comment further at this stage as I do not wish to jeopardise this process.”
I sent a further response having checked with Barnet UNISON, as follows;
I am indebted to you for your response but regret that its contents suggest that you have a limited grasp of employee relations issues.
You say that you have not cut the pay of your employees. However a pay freeze is a pay cut in real terms. Also you have reduced enhancements upon which low paid staff working unsocial hours rely for their overall earnings and have reduced annual leave, thereby requiring staff to work more time for no more money (further reducing the hourly rate). Quite how you consider that the allegation of a pay cut is "deliberately misleading" is beyond me.
You say that no changes have been made to pensions. This is at best disingenuous since the changes which you have made will impact upon the pensionable earnings of employees in their last year of service to the future detriment of their pension. If you do not understand this then I strongly recommend that you consider attending some training on the operation of final salary pension schemes.
You say that the working week is unchanged (whereas I believe you originally intended to increase it). However because of the reductions which you have made in enhancements staff are having to work longer hours in order to maintain their earnings, to the detriment of their family and personal lives and to work life balance.
You are pleased to state that occupational sick pay is "now" up to three months at full pay. The standard for local government workers is up to six months at full pay followed by six months at half pay.
It really is neither here nor there that you are a "registered charity" nor that you may be paying above the (appallingly low) "industry norms". You are part of a process whereby services which used to be directly provided by local authorities, and whose staff enjoyed the terms and conditions negotiated for local government workers are now provided by staff whose terms and conditions are less favourable.
You are part of the process of driving down the costs of public service provision at the expense of often low paid workers. I appreciate that you may find this shameful.”
I finished by inviting her to reconsider the statements which she had made, but have heard nothing further for more than a week. If I get a further response I will amend this post to include it.
Good luck to the strikers for their next day of strike action on 20 September.
I thought I would share my correspondence with Fremantle Chief Executive, Carole Sawyer, to whom I wrote on 6 September as follows;
“Your conduct in cutting the pay of your workers, sacking Andrew Rogers and seeking to silence your critics is disgraceful.You are clearly not a fit person to be involved in the provision of vital public services to vulnerable people and I very much hope that you will have the decency to consider your position.”
She replied the following day;
“Thank you for your e-mail. Your concerns relate to misinformation and deliberately misleading information on the Labourstart and Unison web pages.
Specifically
Pay has not been cut – salaries have been frozen for up to 3 years at April 2007 levels
No changes have been made to the pensions – staff continue to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and we continue to make employer contributions as set by the actuary (currently over 20%)
The working week for ex LBB staff is unchanged at 36 hours full time equivalent
Occupational sick pay entitlement changed from April 2007 and is now up to 3 months at full pay
The necessary changes are to ensure that the future costs of the services can be met from the resources available. This protects both vulnerable service users and staff by ensuring the continuation of services. The Fremantle Trust is a registered charity (not a private company as alleged by Labourstart).
These are not easy decisions and we spent over a year consulting with staff and unions before any changes were made. Fremantle continues to offer an industry leading pay and benefits package – including enhanced payments for weekend, night and bank holiday working, generous occupational sick pay, protected pensions and pay rates well ahead of the industry norms.
With respect to Mr Rogers he was dismissed for gross misconduct after an extensive investigation and after the panel had spent 5 hours reviewing all the evidence (including that of Mr Rogers and his representative). There is an appeal process which I encourage Mr Rogers to follow – I am not prepared to comment further at this stage as I do not wish to jeopardise this process.”
I sent a further response having checked with Barnet UNISON, as follows;
I am indebted to you for your response but regret that its contents suggest that you have a limited grasp of employee relations issues.
You say that you have not cut the pay of your employees. However a pay freeze is a pay cut in real terms. Also you have reduced enhancements upon which low paid staff working unsocial hours rely for their overall earnings and have reduced annual leave, thereby requiring staff to work more time for no more money (further reducing the hourly rate). Quite how you consider that the allegation of a pay cut is "deliberately misleading" is beyond me.
You say that no changes have been made to pensions. This is at best disingenuous since the changes which you have made will impact upon the pensionable earnings of employees in their last year of service to the future detriment of their pension. If you do not understand this then I strongly recommend that you consider attending some training on the operation of final salary pension schemes.
You say that the working week is unchanged (whereas I believe you originally intended to increase it). However because of the reductions which you have made in enhancements staff are having to work longer hours in order to maintain their earnings, to the detriment of their family and personal lives and to work life balance.
You are pleased to state that occupational sick pay is "now" up to three months at full pay. The standard for local government workers is up to six months at full pay followed by six months at half pay.
It really is neither here nor there that you are a "registered charity" nor that you may be paying above the (appallingly low) "industry norms". You are part of a process whereby services which used to be directly provided by local authorities, and whose staff enjoyed the terms and conditions negotiated for local government workers are now provided by staff whose terms and conditions are less favourable.
You are part of the process of driving down the costs of public service provision at the expense of often low paid workers. I appreciate that you may find this shameful.”
I finished by inviting her to reconsider the statements which she had made, but have heard nothing further for more than a week. If I get a further response I will amend this post to include it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)