Today's meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) commenced with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the non-appearance on the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference of a Rule Amendment agreed for submission by the NEC.
The approach of our General Secretary to the necessary explanation of a matter for which he was accountable to the NEC was noteworthy, as was the foolishness of the suggestion made by one person at the meeting that Regional Convenors should be encouraged to lobby the Standing Orders Committee (SOC). The word "counterproductive" sprang unbidden into my mind.
There were few debates about the NEC policy on Conference motions - I did take arms against a sea of troubles over Motion 53 (on joint work with PCS) in order to oppose the misconcieved hostility expressed to the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG) which was wrongly described as a "political group" support for which would contravene Rule J. This debate was an example of leading NEC members arguing that our SOC had made errors in allowing motions on to the Conference Agenda - another such was over Rule Amendment 33 from Lambeth, so I was pleased today to champion the cause of the SOC, who will face tests of their integrity over coming weeks.
I have to say that I felt sure that someone had recently got into trouble for disrespecting the SOC in just such a way - and turned round to ask my friend Glenn Kelly if I had remembered this correctly - only to find he wasn't there...
I was though particularly pleased to clarify that whilst NEC policy on Motion 51 (from Barnet on "Easy Council") was "support with qualifications" these "qualifications" related only to the fact that much of the action for which the motion calls is already underway - and not to any opposition to point (iv) of the motion (hostility to which had been flagged up by an officer who had written the notes before the meeting).
This means that it is already (as of now) NEC policy (in anticipation of a Conference decision) to "encourage branch representatives to liaise with other branches to share their experiences." To you, dear reader that may sound like common sense, but in our UNISON Region I assure you that this is a very positive and progressive step.
I will contact London branches directly to let them know NEC policy on motions which they have proposed.
Jon Rogers 14 April 2010
ReplyDelete"the Trade Union Coordinating Group which was wrongly described as a 'political group'."
Jon Rogers 11 September 2019
"the Trade Union Coordinating Group ... is, as far as I can see, a sensible attempt to maximise the political impact of the work of some of the best campaigning unions. It will appeal to those who look for an alternative to the Labour Party as a vehicle for our aspirations, but it will of necessity work primarily if not exclusively with Labour Parliamentarians ... (the group), convened by John McDonnell, is a far more persuasive attempt at political influence for our class and those of is who are genuinely serirous about a fight for socialist politics inside the Labour Party should welcome this attempt to politicise trade unionism."
Are the two by any chance related? I think we dhould be told ...