Against the EU treaty (even if we don't want to line up with all its opponents!)

From time to time I have been accused of working with strange – or even fringe – political groups within our movement (usually by those with little knowledge of what is really going on!) However I have encountered a weird sect stranger than most others…

The weirdo eurosceptics of the strange former leftwing sect the “CPBML” are seeking to lead the calls for a referendum on the EU treaty (a.k.a. constitution) in our movement.

It’s nice to see the “comrades” stick their head above the battlements and I hope to meet – in the course of their campaign - some of the paid officials of the labour movement who (anonymously) write all the articles in the little read magazine “Workers” (which is sadly afflicted with an opposition to migrant workers which can best be described as racist)(although to be fair they are also in favour of nuclear energy so their support for the reactionary politics of our ruling class is pretty wide ranging!) There are a significant number of paid officials of various trade unions who owe their position to their current or previous association with this slightly odd political faction – who once knew who was leading the way to the future…

I have been accused (by a nearly literate critic) of living in a “parallel universe” so maybe I am wrong, but I cannot help but observe that whilst our General Secretary criticised in his last Conference speech those who take their instructions from a “central committee” he doesn’t seem to have noticed these weird parasites from a once radical organisation now peddling the politics of the Daily Mail – yet they are influential in our Union and have numerous placemen (and women) in the paid and lay structures. (Any of whom are more than welcome to defend their politics here in their own names – or if one or more of their stooges wants to stick up for their political masters then they too are welcome to do so!)(indeed I will even publish anonymous comments from senior paid officials of my own Union who are associated with this weird political sect – as I often have in the past!)

In the mean time, I would be interested in informed views from real labour movement activists (as opposed to the odd bods of the CPBML) about the EU and the demand for a referendum. For my part, I support the policy of the TUC.

Conference is coming - where's that Rule Book?

It’s getting to be Conference time again…

Which is to say that National Delegate Conference is now four and a half months away, but the deadline for submission of motions and Amendments to Rule is just four weeks away (noon on the 26th February).

Since most branches of the Union hold monthly meetings of their Branch Committee – and since Conference motions have to be agreed at a quorate meeting of either the Branch or Branch Committee, now is the time to be drafting those motions (or Rule Amendments).

At last week’s meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee (which I am afraid I missed as I was sitting an exam) there was some discussion about whether to propose reducing the thirteen week qualifying period for entitlement to legal representation. A view was (probably rightly) taken that such a proposal would stand a better chance of success coming from a branch or Region than from the NEC.

I do think we need to reduce the qualifying period for legal assistance. It is utterly daft to try to organise (for example) a new employer on the basis that we cannot guarantee to provide effective support if the employer response promptly with hostility. This will no doubt be debated again at Conference this year.

I am also interested in Rule Amendments which would clarify the role of Conference as the “supreme Government” of the Union (to use the lovely old phrase in the Rule Book). There are a variety of specific Rules which give powers to the National Executive Council which, it has been argued, are exceptions to this general rule about the supremacy of Conference. These cover areas including the interpretation of the Rules themselves, the granting of legal assistance, approval of industrial action and the employment of staff.

It is, for example, because the Rule Book gives sole responsibility for the employment of staff to the NEC that recent attempts even to debate the principle of the election of officials have been ruled out of order. If we wish to have a trade union in which important questions can be debated, we probably need to pay a little more attention this year than we have recently to Rule Amendments.

Conference may or may not choose to give a two thirds majority to Rule Amendments asserting its authority vis-à-vis the NEC (or for that matter the Standing Orders Committee – SOC) but it should probably be given the choice.

Learn from the teachers...?

Good news from the National Union of Teachers, who are to ballot for strike action over pay in the next battle over the Government’s pay restraint policy. Their pay body is proposing just 2.45%, amounting to a real terms pay cut of 1.55%! For many younger teachers (as for many young workers in the public sector) the irony (on which Dave Prentis comments) of a Government basing its pay policy on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) which is rising around 2% but linking interest payments on student loans to the Retail Price Index (RPI) – which truly represents living costs and is rising above 4% - is a little too bitter to appreciate.

The TUC are pledged to coordinate action over public sector pay – although TUC President (and our own General Secretary) did emphasise to the UNISON NEC that this means first and foremost organising “sector by sector” unity.

I am not particularly taken with this sectional approach, but if that is the approach which the leadership is to adopt then let’s see it put into practice now. Local Government workers have submitted pay claims which we know the employers will reject.

We cannot be in any doubt that the employers in local government will not offer us a deal in line with the Retail Price Index, the very least we could even consider settling for. Therefore if the teachers are moving to take action, we need to be preparing ourselves to do the same.

Every local government worker who has ever been on strike knows that united action between teachers and other local government workers maximises the impact of our action.

The TUC are talking to the Government – that’s fine. What we need now though is united action. We have warned the Government, now we need to organise to give that warning meaning.

Discussion should begin now about whether it will be possible to coordinate action between as many teaching unions as possible and as many other local government unions as possible.

Watch this space? Or maybe this one?

More thoughts on five activists and three wise monkeys

I promised – in response to comments from DM Andy on an earlier post – to discuss a little further the interesting debate which took place at the Lambeth UNISON Branch Annual General Meeting (and which has been continuing in the branch since) concerning what has come to be known as the “three wise monkeys” leaflet distributed at UNISON Conference, the subsequent formal disciplinary investigation by the Union into a number of activists and the “Defend the Five” campaign set up in response.

Since the background is fairly well reported online I shall summarise it briefly. Some UNISON branches in London agreed to prepare and circulate a leaflet at last year’s National Delegate Conference critical of the practice of the Standing Orders Committee in ruling out of order so many motions.

This leaflet appeared at Conference illustrated with a graphic of “three wise monkeys” (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) and some delegates felt that this graphic amounted to an offensive, even a racist attack upon the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee (who is a black man). These views were expressed forcefully on behalf of black members in particular.

This criticism was voiced at Conference but the authors of the leaflet were not able to respond formally as the matter had already by that stage been referred to an internal UNISON investigation (the eventual outcome of which is still awaited but which could lead to formal disciplinary action against the authors of the leaflet with outcomes up to and including expulsion).

There has been some criticism of the leaflet’s authors for the perceived inadequacy (if not downright absence) of a proper apology for any offence which was caused by the leaflet, although a comment on the earlier post on this blog rightly points out that the branches associated with the leaflet were not permitted to make any open statement (including any apology) at Conference once the matter was subject to investigation (although that does not mean that no apology could be given).

Supporters of the authors of the leaflet have set up a campaign, with a website and a Facebook group, in their defence. They perceive this matter from the perspective of a dispute between the rank and file left in the Union and the Union machine wishing to stifle critics. There continues however to be concern within the Black Members self-organised group at Regional and National level that the leaflet did cause genuine offence and that the campaign in defence of its authors does not appear to recognise this. This view was expressed eloquently at the Lambeth UNISON Branch AGM as follows “this is not about an attack on the left or an attack on the right, this is an attack on black people.”

The Lambeth Branch AGM had before it a motion agreed for submission by the Branch Committee the previous day which drew from the “Defend the Five” campaign. This attracted some criticism from comrades from the Black Workers Group who felt that the imagery of the “three wise monkeys” could indeed have been taken as an offensive racist attack upon the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee at National Delegate Conference.

Those who thought the leaflet might genuinely have been perceived as offensive did not argue that they thought this was the intention of the authors, nor did they support the action being taken against them. Those who thought that the priority was to defend activists who appeared to be facing a politically motivated attack did not take issue with the suggestion that the leaflet might genuinely have caused offence.

The end result of the discussion was that the motion was referred to the branch Black Workers Group for debate and subsequent further debate at the Branch Committee. The intention of all participants in the debate is to arrive at a consensus reflecting the considerable common ground between the views expressed at the Annual General Meeting.

Since then the debate has continued and I am indebted to one of our shop stewards who contributed the following to the debate;

“Below is a short history of the Three Wise Monkeys. I have highlighted the last point in the hope that it clarifies the issue.
Together they embody the proverbial principle to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil.
Sometimes there is a fourth monkey depicted with the three others; the last one, Shizaru, symbolizes the principle of "do no evil". He may be covering his abdomen or crotch, or just crossing his arms.
Meaning of the proverb
Just as there is disagreement about the origin of the phrase, there are differing explanations of the meaning of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."
In Japan the proverb is simply regarded as a Japanese Golden Rule
Some simply take the proverb as a reminder not to be snoopy, nosy and gossipy.
Early associations of the three monkeys with the fearsome six-armed deity Vajrakilaya link the proverb to the teaching of that cult that if we do not hear, see or talk evil, we ourselves shall be spared all evil. This may be considered similar to the English proverb "speak of the Devil - and the devil appears."
Others believe the message is that a person who is not exposed to evil (through sight or sound) will not reflect that evil in their own speech and actions.
Today "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a wilfull blind eye to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.”

This corresponds with what you can read online.

Where does this take us?

Well, I don’t want to prejudge the discussions which I hope we will now have in Lambeth, but I don’t think that expressing my personal opinion as it is now will do that.

The criticism of the Standing Orders Committee which the authors intended was a legitimate criticism, the essence of which was shared by many at Conference. It would have been so much better done without the “three wise monkeys”!

Although I entirely accept that the authors of the leaflet had no intention of offending anyone with the slightest suggestion of racism – and the history of the imagery which they employed supports this – nevertheless I think that in all the circumstances the use of the “three wise monkeys” was unfortunate to say the least. On the face of it, it did offend some of those who saw it. I think that this has to be accepted, and that to accept it is in no sense to line up with any unwarranted attack upon the authors.

That this could not be resolved at Conference is a consequence of the speed with which the matter was turned into a complaint to be investigated rather than a concern to be resolved. Turning this issue into a complaint investigation created a momentum which is hardly helpful to the best interests of UNISON, and it is understandable that those who perceived themselves to be under attack have mounted a vigorous defence.

There are two dimensions to this question and both have to be taken into account. To see this simply as an issue about an attack upon leftwing activists writes out of the story the genuine sense of offence felt by some of those who saw the leaflet at Conference and perceived – and therefore experienced – it as racist. However, to see this as simply an issue about UNISON’s opposition to racism is to ignore the glaringly obvious political context. Neither approach deals with what is going on.

My view as things stand is that it is quite right to stand in solidarity with Glenn, Kaz, Brian, Matthew and Suzanne, and to make clear that a draconian response to criticism of the Conference leaflet will provoke a very serious dispute within the Union. However, in standing alongside these comrades we have also to say to the “Defend the Five” campaign that it is not good enough simply to say that no racism was intended or that the history of the “three wise monkeys” means that racism cannot have been perceived. Racism was perceived and the five activists can and should make more clear that they apologise unreservedly for the offence to which their leaflet unintentionally gave rise.

It is never a sign of weakness to apologise for a mistake. Indeed I note from a comment on the earlier post that a letter of apology was sent to the Standing Orders Committee and National Black Members Committee.

I think that the way forward should be to build upon this apology in order to address and respond to the offence that was caused – not to pursue formal disciplinary action in circumstances in which this will lead inexorably to a major avoidable confrontation.

Apologies for the length of this post (that’s the trouble with blogs, no one subedits my ramblings…) Apologies for the absence of hypertext links also (I am learning Linux and OpenOffice...)

Defend Union activists - whoever attacks them...

This is one of those posts where you do need to remember the disclaimer on this blog (and – for my readers at UNISON HQ – this is all being done on my home computer!!) I have blogged here a fair bit recently about the importance of defending trade union activists, such as Karen Reissman and Michael Gavan, who are under attack from the employers.

Sometimes we also have to defend trade union activists under attack from within our own movement.

At a meeting of the Lambeth UNISON Branch Committee this morning, activists were shocked to hear details of internal disciplinary action being threatened within UNISON against five London activists facing allegations of racism in connection with a leaflet critical of the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) at last year’s UNISON Conference.

The leaflet used the graphic of “three wise monkeys” (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) to illustrate reasoned criticism of the enthusiasm with which the SOC was ruling out of order contentious or controversial motions for debate at the Conference. Some delegates felt that the use of this graphic was racist.

This is the sort of dispute that can all too easily crop up at a trade union Conference – and that is where it should have been resolved. If delegates were offended then the branches concerned could have been asked to apologise since it was clear that they never intended to offend.

Instead the Union has launched into a formal disciplinary investigation – and the possibility of disciplinary action against the activists. The five officers, under investigation are Glenn Kelly NEC member and Bromley branch secretary, Onay Kasab, Greenwich Branch secretary, Brian Debus and Matthew Waterfall, Hackney branch chair and secretary respectively and Suzanne Muna, housing corporation branch secretary.

One thing these five have in common is that they – and their branches – are leftwing critics of the Union leadership. To take formal disciplinary action over this matter would be so grossly disproportionate that it would appear to be politically motivated. I am afraid that this is not the only example of over the top disciplinary action against left wing activists within the Union. (You might almost think that elements of the Union leadership lack the confidence that they can win an argument with the left in front of the membership and are resorting to administrative measures to silence critics!)

UNISON activists need to make very clear that any such unwarranted and unjustified political attack would lead to a strong, united and wide ranging response. UNISON needs to concentrate upon defending our members interests – not on witch hunting socialists. Further details are online here.

Brendan warns Gordon with words. What about deeds?

Brendan Barber is not a happy bunny!

In today’s Guardian he berates the Government for its plans to hold down the living standards of public servants. This is of course fitting in the leader of a trade union centre which now has its last source of strength in the public sector.

However, he does not conclude with a stirring call to industrial action but with a warning about the potential electoral consequences of disappointing six million voters.

It’s a fair point, but one which the trade unions could be making with more force. What Brendan implies is correct – given a Labour Government which attacks our standard of living, public sector workers will, in some numbers, be driven away from supporting Labour.

Some will (foolishly) vote Tory or Liberal, some will (perhaps more understandably) experiment with radical alternatives (some see the nationalists and the Greens in this light). However, there is no prospect of the trade union leadership doing anything whatsoever to focus the political pressure to which they are eager to allude.

Without some conscious effort on the part of the union leaderships to apply meaningful political pressure upon the Government this invocation of the electoral consequences of parsimony looks like nothing so much as an attempt to avoid the hard work involved in organising industrial action, and to appear critical of a Government for whose re-election we will work tirelessly for fear of something worse.

There are those who offer the unions the alternative of breaking altogether with the Labour Party, whether directly or through limited support for other candidates. I am afraid that the recent implosions of both the Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, together with the consistent failure of any other far left force to achieve significant electoral progress make it inconceivable that this argument will make much headway in the near future. I am certainly not persuaded!

Does this leave us to moan about the policies of a Labour Government whilst we continue to write cheques to, and devote energy to the Labour Party without question or influence?

It needn’t.

The trade unions had an opportunity to back a challenge to Gordon Brown in the leadership election and the leadership failed to do so. Yet we still have the option of lining the trade unions up alongside those in the Labour Party who support our policies.

We threw away our right to make policy at Conference – we need to reclaim the right to fight for the interests of our members at every level within the Labour Party, from the branch all the way down to the Parliamentary Party. This means fighting against the Party leadership and alongside the left.

This is not an alternative to industrial action – that is what is needed to take on Gordon Brown’s disgraceful public sector pay policy. However we can obtain greater political influence for our industrial action through the most effective use of our potential political weight.

Hinting that our members might stay home come election day, whilst we remain committed to getting them all out to vote Labour come what may, is a very poor use of the power of our movement. Come on Brendan, buck your ideas up!

Public sector getting ripped off...

The latest news from the Department for stating the obvious is that the National Audit Office have spotted that the public sector is getting fleeced by private contractors (obviously further reports on the Catholicism of the Pope and the toilet habits of bears are in the pipeline…)

This is something that those of us who work in public services know all too well. Private contractors are not our “partners” and they don’t exist, as public sector bodies do, in order to provide services – they exist to maximise shareholder value, which means you have to watch them like hawks.

It is all very well the NAO and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee berating the public sector managers who are “allowing themselves” to be ripped off. The problem is not about competency. It is a structural problem.

We should be bringing as many services back in-house as we can, and funding the development of public services with public money in the public sector. Public-private partnerships are simply a device to siphon taxpayers money into the pockets of shareholders.

Don't do it Glenn!

With apologies to those who are not interested in internal UNISON elections I have to write one of those blog posts which is not posted using any Union resources.

The elections to UNISON's Service Group Executives are due and candidates are requesting nominations. In London, local government branches are being asked for nominations for the male seat by respected left-wing incumbent David Eggmore, current chair of the National Joint Council committee, Regional Finance Convenor, John Gray (from the right) and NEC member (and Socialist Party leading light) Glenn Kelly.

Two years ago David held the seat in a straight left-right election against John Gray. Glenn's intervention threatens to split the left vote and let a right wing candidate in. On the face of it this is incredibly daft because Glenn is already a full voting member of the body to which he is now seeking election. As a member of the National Executive Council elected to represent the local government service group, Glenn is a member of the Service Group Executive with the right to both speak and vote. Were Glenn to hold both his NEC seat and the SGE seat currently held by David Eggmore, he would hold two seats on the SG with only one vote.

London has three seats on the Local Government Service Group Executive (SGE), another of the seats is falling vacant as Jean Geldart, currently Chair of the SGE is standing down. This, I am afraid, explains why Glenn is pursuing this bizarre course of action. As an NEC member on the SGE, Glenn can speak and vote but is ineligible to be elected as Chair of the SGE. He believes that he, and only he, can challenge current Vice-Chair, Chris Tansley, to be Chair of the SGE after the elections. I have yet to speak to an SGE member (other than Glenn) who believes that Glenn could win such an election, nor even that he would be the best candidate to stand against Chris Tansley.

Glenn has pointed out that David could potentially be re-elected indirectly to the SGE through his membership of the National Joint Council Committee (of which he is Chair). This rather massively misses the point that Glenn himself is already a member of the SGE. Even if David were simply to stand aside for Glenn (as Glenn believes that he should) there is no guarantee that Glenn would win an election against John Gray, who could campaign on the basis that his opponent is already a member of the SGE. John is gearing up for a serious (if not perhaps entirely forthright) campaign (his request for nominations omits to mention his Labour Party membership, of which readers of his blog will know he is very proud!)

With truly legendary chutzpah Glenn has tried to present David's decision to seek re-election to the SGE, and the decision of many leftwing activists to back him, as sectarian manoeuvring against himself and the Socialist Party.

On the contrary, David is an incumbent left-wing candidate who has done a good job, particularly in recent years. It is Glenn who has to explain why the prospect of his failed candidacy for Chair of the SGE is so vital that it is more important than the unity of the left in the Union.

Far from wishing to do down the Socialist Party, left wing candidate Sonya Howard, who is seeking nominations to the vacant seat currently held by Jean Geldart and is supporting and supported by David Eggmore, offered to stand aside and lend her support to a woman candidate from the Socialist Party. With a campaign uniting the left in London this offer could have led to the addition of another member to the SGE from the Socialist Party, something that Glenn's election would not do (since he is already a member of the SGE). Unfortunately, Glenn rejected this proposal and has issued a request for nominations.

I have worked alongside Glenn Kelly for many years. I respect and admire him (although we do not always agree) and I consider him a friend. It is with great sorrow that I see my friend about to make this terrible mistake.

Glenn is seeking nominations to a body of which he is already a full voting member simply because he cannot conceive that there could be another candidate of the left in the election to Chair that body. I have more confidence in friends and comrades on the Service Group Executive. I believe that those who are elected to the Service Group Executive and who wish to see a serious fight against the Government’s pay policy will be well able to find from amongst their number a candidate to Chair the SGE – perhaps even a candidate who can win.

Glenn appears to believe that if he is not there to stand then no one else in a Union with over a million members is capable of doing so. That could be characterised as perhaps a little self-absorbed. More importantly it is just plain wrong.

When, as I hope and believe, our Union acquires a more militant leadership, I hope that Glenn and his comrades will be a part of that. We need to find ways to work together as socialists, much as we may disagree about many things. I believe that the United Left made a serious attempt to compromise with the desire of our comrades in the Socialist Party to stand candidates in the elections to the SGE – this failed because one individual believes that he is the only possible leader for local government workers.

Well, Glenn, you are often right mate. But this time you are badly wrong.

Equal Pay moving centre stage?

For a long time the media have been more or less ignoring the massive problem of implementing equal pay in the public services – now you can hardly turn the Today programme on without hearing someone talk about it!

Last week Brian Strutton of the GMB acquitted himself well in a debate with notorious “no win no fee” lawyer Stefan Cross. Yesterday, Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights was calling for representative legal action to be possible in order to unblock the employment tribunal system which is overloaded with equal pay cases.

The CEHR appear to be heading towards backing the phased introduction of equal pay in order to limit disputes, such as that in Birmingham, over pay protection for those who lose out. If we don’t get sufficient funding from central Government to provide adequate protection and fair back pay then perhaps this compromise is unavoidable.

Capitalisation – allowing local authorities to borrow to meet the one off costs of implementing equal pay – has given some authorities room to manoeuvre but the real answer would be for the Government to remember where it keeps those billions of pounds which were available for Northern Rock or for the Iraq war and to apply some of them to funding the implementation of single status…

Equal Pay in 2008?

Today’s Guardian flags up one of the major issues which will continue to confront UNISON in 2008. It’s good to read comment which is not simply advertising the services of the “no win no fee” lawyers.

The fundamental problem which faces employers and unions in local government is the lack of central funding – we need to step up our campaign on this issue.

At the moment we are more than a little hamstrung in campaigning on Equal Pay by the legal advice that we can’t discuss the issue in our Conferences and Regional Councils for fear that someone will say something that could be used in evidence against the Union. Also the sheer volume of litigation is clearly taking up the time and energy of our senior officials to such an extent that we aren’t taking the political initiative as we should.

Gordon Brown told the TUC in 2005 that “our aim is to end once and for all the gender pay gap in our country.” It is a laudable aim, and it requires further reaching social change than can be achieved by either litigation or collective bargaining – but it also requires money. We need to step up the pressure on the Government – and those who aspire to exert influence on behalf of our movement need to raise their game.

Another death...

Today’s news is terrible – and not just for the victim of assassination.

All the world leaders condemn the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but this looks to me like the sort of event which will mark the “New World Order” of the twenty first century. One more death among many others.

There is some sensible comment on this event. I can’t help but step back and look at where we are and how we got here.

Imperialist adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, eagerly supported by daft cheerleaders in this country, have contributed massively to destabilising an entire region.

The United States sponsored political Islam as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and now wages a nonsensical “war on terror” whilst the “terror” against which “we” are at war appears to be armed materially by elements within the Pakistani security services (“our” allies) and ideologically by the those close to the Saudi regime (also “our” allies – though not ours!)

The “war” on terror provides the perfect enemy for the single global superpower, and its (latest) demented poodle. An intangible adversary gives every opportunity for unnecessary attacks upon liberty at home , asymmetrical warfare overseas and a context for domestic austerity.

We are reaping the whirlwind that was unleashed by the fall of the wall. I was no fan of the Soviet Union (and am in no doubt that it’s collapse was a long term consequence of the betrayal of the revolution by the Stalinists) (sorry comrades). However, since the global alternative to capitalism was squashed under the wheels of a convoy of westbound Trabants (and its own failings) we have seen what this unipolar world is going to be like. It's not looking good.

For us in the UK we have a declining trade union movement and a party of “the left” which is no longer of the left. Attempts to build socialist alternatives to the Labour Party are either tragic or farcical. It is easy to fall prey to despair.

There is hope in the world of course (and our movement globally is not in decline). We have to make our own hope too though. As we think globally we have to act locally – against attacks on our class and our fellow activists.

We have to build (and rebuild) a democratic movement of working class people not only because that is how we strive for dignity and justice in the workplace right now but because our movement is the last and only hope for the future of humanity.

Might take a while though…

Season's Greetings

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year reader to all readers of this blog (that's obviously both of you - Sid and Doris Blogger of Neasden...)

We have loads to do in 2008 so if you don't mind I shall try to relax and unwind until the end of 2007... :)

Here we go, here we go, here we go?

As we were told last week, yesterday saw the launch of the TUC’s coordination of a campaign to break the Government’s 2% pay policy – full details of which are online here.

I am of course a bit of a cynic but it does worry me to read that the TUC has “called on ministers to accept in full the next round of recommendations from the various pay review bodies, if they wanted to avoid a repetition of the anger that provoked a wave of strike ballots across the public sector in 2007.”

Personally I object to pay being set by “review bodies” which pretend to neutrality rather than by the process of collective bargaining – but I recognise that there are divided views on this in the movement. However, given that the whole point of our pay campaign for the coming year is to break the 2% norm I doubt the wisdom of simply tying ourselves to whatever is recommended by the pay review bodies.

Furthermore, I don’t think we will get very far by threatening a repeat of 2007, which saw a comprehensive failure to build a united fight on pay across the public sector.

It is much more helpful to read that “the TUC campaign will also call for pay increases to reflect the true cost of living in the UK. The government insists on using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which currently stands at 2.1% as its target for pay awards. Yet working people are currently facing real inflation levels of 4.1% according to the Retail Price Index (RPI). This measure, which includes housing costs, is a more accurate and realistic reflection of the rising cost of living than the CPI.”

Whilst there is strategic political importance in breaking the 2% norm, our members will only experience any pay settlement as a victory if it at least begins to reverse the decline in living standards over recent years – this certainly means a settlement above the increase in the RPI. The TUC have also issued a report rebutting the suggestion that public sector pay increases are driving inflation.

UNISON local government branches need to remember to return the consultation pro formas to their Regional office so that the local government pay claim can be formulated. We also need to get back on track with work at local and Regional level to build direct links with rank and file members of other Unions.

For those who don’t wish to navigate the obstacle courses which can be set in the way of such sensible initiatives by over rigid interpretation of relevant UNISON guidelines, it would be a good idea to get the local Trades Council to organise a meeting early in the New Year – and to set up a Trades Council if one doesn’t exist so that it is available to enable local rank and file coordination in future.

Officially the Union is set to focus, very sensibly, upon building alliances with the key unions in each sector on a sector by sector basis – this is crucial since it would weaken us if unions with significant membership in health or local government were not part of a united fight. Locally and at a rank and file level it is important that we make links with brothers and sisters in all public sector unions – this is a political fight against a political enemy and we need to maximise our forces to secure the best outcome.

2008 pay fight starts here?

As reported by Dave Prentis to the last UNISON NEC meeting, it is reported in today’s Observer that the TUC will this week launch a campaign on public sector pay. Although not yet on the TUC website it appears that this campaign is going to borrow the badge of “Speak Up for Public Services” which was established around the official lobby of Parliament last January.

Of course that lobby was dwarfed by the 2,000 plus strong lobby organised by the Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign in July 2006. We do need the TUC to coordinate joint action on public sector pay – but history suggests we should be cautious about the leadership of the TUC, which will itself be ultra-cautious!

However, we do have the opportunity to confront the Government over its pay policy in 2008 in the interests of our members – and in a way which we have failed in 2007. We need to put our feet up, relax and party for a couple of weeks now because next year is going to be tough...

Strike action can get results

According to the UNISON Scottish Region website, striking daycare workers in Glasgow have narrowly voted to accept a settlement and bring to an end their eight week old strike. Critics of the deal put before the strikers believe that the strikers should have held out for more. It seems that a settlement which removes the need for pay protection depends upon agreement to changes in service delivery.

From hundreds of miles away I am not in a position to say if this is a good deal or not (although clearly the strikers themselves were in two minds about settling as the vote was very close). However, this development does show that the employers can be shifted by industrial action. I hope that this is good news for UNISON members in Newham gearing up for strike action on 13 December in opposition to the disgraceful victimisation of UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.

Good luck to Newham UNISON for tomorrow’s strike!

Report to Greater London UNISON Branches - support Newham strike on 13 December - defend Karen Reissman

This is the text of a report I have made today to branches in the Greater London Region of UNISON;

I attended last night a meeting at the House of Commons at which I gained some useful information about official UNISON disputes from speakers directly involved in those disputes. I am writing to pass this information on urgently to branches in the Greater London Region.

Newham branch strike action 13 December

UNISON members in Newham local government branch are on strike tomorrow – as you may have seen on the Regional UNISON website. This strike is part of UNISON’s official dispute with Newham Council over the disgraceful sacking of Newham Branch Chair, Michael Gavan, for having undertaken trade union activities.

A rally will take place from 11.30am at the Hartley Centre in East Ham. The address is 267 Barking Road, East Ham, E6. It’s five minutes walk from East Ham Town Hall and ten minutes walk from East Ham tube, which is on the District Line.

This strike comes a day before UNISON’s claim for “interim relief” for Michael and I hope that anyone who can possibly be in Newham to support Michael and the Newham branch will do so. There can be no more important priority than support for a fellow trade unionist who has been victimised. If you can possibly cancel commitments in order to be there tomorrow please do.

Karen Reissman dispute

As you may have seen on the national UNISON website, the appeal against the dismissal of Manchester UNISON health service activist Karen Reissman was dismissed yesterday. I heard yesterday from two of the striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch whose members are determined to secure justice for Karen and who have the full official support of UNISON.

I attach a motion adopted by a meeting of striking members of the Manchester Community and Mental Health Branch yesterday which I know that the strikers wish to draw to the attention of UNISON branches, and which sets out their views as to how the dispute should now be carried forward. (If any UNISON member would like to see a copy of the motion contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk).

You can keep up to date with the campaign at the campaign website as well as in the regular bulletins which are being sent out officially.

Finally, if you would like to read a report from yesterday’s meeting (which was not an official UNISON meeting) a report is available online.

Both Karen and Michael have been sacked for being dedicated and effective trade union activists and for pursuing UNISON’s policy of opposition to privatisation, I hope that all branches in Greater London will be considering how we can help and support our victimised activists.

Local Government Pay 2008 - what to ask for and how to get it?

Hat’s off to my fellow NEC blogger John McDermott – who was in ahead of me with his NEC report and has blogged since about the local government pay claim.

UNISON branches are being consulted on the claim – though we have very little time in which to give our views I am very sympathetic to the need for early agreement on a claim so that it can be submitted quickly. The NJC Committee agreed there should not be a repeat of the long and drawn out negotiations over pay that occurred this year, and that the claim should be for a headline figure of 6%. They also agreed the claim should seek to substantially increase pay at the bottom end, with a view to making progress towards a minimum hourly rate of £6.75.

The GMB has already arrived at a settled view which is to call for;

* 7% or 75p/hour increase, whichever is the greater, for a one-year deal.

* A 35 hour week with no detriment.

* 2 days additional annual leave with no detriment.

* Improvements to car mileage payments.

* An increase to the night shift allowance to achieve double time over three years.

* An increase to the sleep-in allowance to £60 per shift.

The UNISON NJC Committee are recommending that the service conditions issues should be part of a separate claim as part of the joint review of the Green Book (the national agreement). The London Regional Local Government Executive discussed this earlier in the week as I reported earlier.

My friend and comrade Malcolm Campbell expressed support for a flat rate claim – which is what I shall argue for in my branch. I’d be interested to know what other branches are thinking of.

We also need to discuss tactics for strike action over the national pay dispute which we will inevitably be having next year. Is our objective to break the 2% norm or to achieve an above inflation increase? How do we motivate those who will be or are already on pay protection as a result of Single Status to campaign for a pay rise they may not see immediately (depending upon the status of their protection)?

There’s a lot to think about.

Equal Pay - where do we go now?

I really will get my report of Wednesday’s NEC meeting written up shortly!

When I do I won’t cover in full detail the longest discussion at the meeting, as I have been able to do now for the last couple of years. That’s because the lengthy discussions on Equal Pay (including the implementation of Agenda for Change in the Health Service and Single Status in local government) concern an area in which the trade unions (not just UNISON) are embroiled in so much litigation. We are running thousands of legal cases and are also responding to a smaller – but still large – number of cases in which Union members are taking action against their Union (assisted and encouraged by a growing band of “No Win No Fee” solicitors).

The legal advice is that anything said officially by or on behalf of UNISON could end up being used – unpredictably – in evidence against the Union. It is all unpredictable because the case law in this area is continually evolving and so what it is reasonable to do one day may turn out later to have been unreasonable and wrong as the courts decide that the law always meant something different.

One consequence of all of this is that the Union isn’t really able to communicate effectively about the vast amount of work which is being done in relation to equal pay – and is also very reticent about publicising the various local disputes which have been springing up. We are also not really pursuing our campaigning agenda with the vigour that is called for, both I think because of the sheer scale of Head Office resources tied up by the litigation but also because I am not sure anyone in the union movement, or in Government, has a ready solution to the problem.

Of course we do know part of the solution – Government funding on a sufficient scale to fill the gender pay gap, providing recompense to those who have lost out and levelling up rather than down. This is the policy of UNISON and of the TUC and our Local Government Service Group lobbied Parliament along these lines in the summer. All we got was a little extra “capitalisation” (authority for local Councils to go further into debt to fund the costs of implementing Single Status).

Another bizarre consequence of the current wave of litigation is that, on legal advice, we cannot now formally debate Equal Pay at our decision making Conferences (for fear that a resolution drafted in clear and unambiguous terms could come to be evidence against the Union in a case in which, of necessity, we have had to settle for less than our initial demands). As we wait for cases to make their way to Europe this self-imposed silence is set to last for several years.

Now even our ability to communicate with our members at branch level is being inhibited. Such is the all pervading influence of the culture of litigation upon the Union that it is quite possible now that branches negotiating the best deal that they can get with an employer can be told that the Union will recommend members reject that deal, even though we have no viable strategy to improve it, because a cautious reading of developing case law suggests potential legal liability for the Union were it to recommend the deal.

I am generally among the first to criticise the recommendation to members of unsatisfactory settlements – but the place to resolve differences of this nature is within the Union movement through our democratic structures.

We have now reached a point at which, in relation to a central issue for our Union affecting many thousands of our members in a very direct way, we can do almost none of the things that a Union should do without first asking a lawyer and waiting (and waiting) for their advice.

We need to find a way out of this impasse that does not involve waiting for the end of all the litigation, otherwise we are simply failing to act as a trade union should in relation to one of our own key priorities.

Regional Local Government Executive Report

Today’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Executive witnessed a particularly lengthy debate around the Secretary’s report on industrial action in London local government.

Two visitors from the Barnet branch kicked off a positive discussion about support for the long running Fremantle dispute. The Committee agreed to congratulate the branch and the strikers on sustaining their dispute and to call for support for the rally at the House of Commons on 11 December and for Early Day Motion 276.

The Committee also discussed the disgraceful victimisation of Michael Gavan, Chair of Newham UNISON local government branch. It was reported that Michael’s claim for interim relief at the employment tribunal will be heard on Friday 14 November and that the Newham Branch Committee will this evening be considering whether to call for further strike action in advance of that hearing. The Committee gave its full support to UNISON’s campaign for Michael’s reinstatement and gave in principle support to any further requests for strike action which the branch may make.

The Committee also agreed to encourage a positive approach to identifying ways in which financial support can be given to victimised activists.

The Committee went on to debate the process whereby requests from branches for industrial action ballots are considered. This is clearly unsatisfactory and gives rise to avoidable delays and the Executive agreed to refer the question to the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee. Time will tell whether this will lead to any positive progress. Branches may need to consider how to put motions to National Delegate Conference to expedite industrial action requests.

The other main item of business which I should report in the time available concerns our pay claim for 2008. Branches should shortly receive a draft claim agreed by the UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee on 28 November, this is for 6% and substantial progress to achieve UNISON’s (national) objective of a minimum hourly rate of £6.75 (obviously this would be higher in London). A separate claim for improvements in various service conditions would be submitted as part of the review of the Green Book which has been jointly agreed.

Branches will have a short period to consult upon the offer and may wish to consider whether a flat rate claim would not be better than a percentage. A flat rate increase of £1,400 would pretty much achieve the uprating of the minimum hourly rate whilst distributing the benefits to all lower paid workers not just the lowest paid.

Whatever claim we settle upon the good news is that the intention is to lodge the claim in January with a view to taking a decision on the employers’ offer after 31 March. So we need to be preparing for strike action now.

Finally, congratulations to Croydon UNISON and their Branch Secretary Malcolm Cambell for securing an agreement on the pay and grading review (and to David Eggmore, Chair of the Executive for getting us through most of our Agenda this morning!)

Fighting for UNISON members at the UNISON NEC

Being a member of the National Executive Council (NEC) of UNISON is a sometimes strange and surreal experience. Members would – I suppose – imagine that the body charged with running the Union between our Annual National Delegate Conferences would meet frequently and pay attention to the detail of what our Union does.

In fact the NEC does neither of these things.

We meet infrequently and as much detailed work as there is to be done is delegated to Committees. The most important such bodies consist of meetings of those already elected to Chair – or selected by - other Committees, hence generally (but not always) they consist entirely of those already predisposed to agree with what has been decided by those in charge.

Those in charge are the key officials and not the leading members of the NEC (although sufficient interpersonal skills are deployed that I imagine that some leading members of the NEC do in fact believe that they are leading the Union). There are leading lay activists who keep straight left and who are genuinely influential but I am not always sure they remember where they came from or where they belong…

I shall look forward to reporting back from next Wednesday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC at which I will be seeking official support for the rally which will be taking place at the House of Commons on Tuesday 11 December in support of UNISON activists who are fighting privatisation and its consequences. I hope we will seize this opportunity to unite the trade union movement with our real allies in Parliament in order to promote the interests of our members.

Our Union could be even better than it is if we could galvanise real unity in action between our very experienced and capable national officials and our equally experienced and dedicated lay activists. To do this we need to unite against a common enemy and forget about squabbling.

Unison has no enemies to our left politically. Sometimes some of our key people forget this. The enemies of our members are those who push forward privatisation and who want to hold down our pay.

I hope to be able to give a positive report in five days time and that we will unite with our friends and allies to promote the interests of our members.