Unity is strength in the fight for fair pay

I blogged about the publicised decision of our National Joint Council to call for further strike action on 30 September. The news report on which I based that blog post is still online (thanks to Google) but is no longer available on the UNISON website.

The bulletin to local government branches of UNISON, dated Wednesday was unequivocal;

“The UNISON NJC Committee met yesterday to review the J10 strike and decide next steps in our campaign.  It has decided to hold a second day of strike action on Tuesday 30 September rather than the earlier dates suggested.  30^th September is the last date local government pay is above the National Minimum Wage. On 1 October, SCP 5 will fall below the new NMW of £6.50 per hour.

This means that the ballot timetables for the 15 national MATs have now been revised to enable members to take action on 30 September. Education and Children’s Services will issue separate guidance about this and related matters shortly.

The NJC TU Side Executive is meeting on 29 July to discuss coordinating second wave action and further information will follow. The UNISON NJC Committee also agreed to set a date for industrial action in October should there be no movement by the Employers.”   

The news is out there. Branches have passed it on. It’s on our twitter feed.

The GMB Press Office on the other hand hasn’t tweeted about the dispute since announcing the success of action on 10 July. Informally I have been advised that “The GMB’s current position is further day of strike in the week commencing 13^th October along with other public sector unions. But with a day of non-strike protest in August.”  

UNITE also lauded the success of the action but, the inconclusive outcome of the (National Joint Council ) NJC trade union side on 22 July hasn’ t  produced any subsequent reference to the local government pay dispute on twitter. It appears that the Executive of the NJC Trade Union Side, which will meet next Tuesday, may not produce a consensus in support of action on 30 September.

There are some interesting silenceswithin UNISON over the past week also.

Our leaders – lay and full-time – across all three local government unions (and the other unions whose support we all need, as they need ours) need to be dunked repeatedly in cold water until an agreed strategy for action on public sector pay is arrived at.

I don’t have an easy or immediate answer. Certainly if we wanted effective unified  action across all unions we would not want to start from here – but that is the one thing about which we have no choice.

We should – but do not – have a unified rank and file movement across the major trade unions so that activists could try to hammer out a common position for which we could argue. We do not have such an effective body. All we have are risible front organisations, declining captives of sectarianism and obscure fossils(and worthy campaigns which are incapable of intervening in such matters).

In the absence of such a unifying force we probably need to start by finding some way to have an honest debate about our strengths, weaknesses and tactics. This has to be conducted in public, because otherwise it is hidden from our members, even though this means that it is also conducted in full view of the employers.

There are a few things we shouldn’t do.

We shouldn’t “talk up” the impact of and support for strike action to the extent that it bears no relation to the experience of our activists (ourselves) on our picket lines. We need to be honest about the room for improvement which always exists, and try to assess it accurately so that we can try to use it. To improve. This is difficult because such honesty will always be seized upon by the defeatistsand careerists to call off action – but it is unavoidable if we are to make an informed assessment of what to do next.

We shouldn’t pull our punches when criticising the absurd timidity of our officials in the face of this year’s bugbear “legal jeopardy”. I confess to guilt on this point since I haven’t said before that it is both pathetic and absurd that UNISON has adopted such a restrictive approach to balloting members in Academies. (It is not acceptable that branches and Regions are told that the UNISON Centre may need them to chip in to run ballots as it lacks capacity. UNISON staff should be redeployed as necessary and immediately to ensure we ballot everyone we can.)

We shouldn’t fall in to the trap of “union chauvinism”. I don’t support UNISON for the sake of supporting my own union – indeed one of the most read posts on this blog dealt entirely with circumstances in which UNISON was falling short. In the same way, GMB members shouldn’t be precious about defending GMB, nor UNITE, nor NUT members – not even members of PCS. Socialist trade union activists are on the side of the workers (rather than this or that trade union) and, as a general rule, we want to see a meaningful unity of trade union leaderships, not to volunteer as cheerleaders even for the most leftwing.

We shouldn’t subordinate our fight for a decent pay rise to the cause of supporting a change of Government through support for the TUC demonstration in October. We should support that demonstrationof course – and we should certainly be doing all we can to see that we have both a Labour Government and a movement capable of exerting meaningful pressure upon it. We are not, however, a stage army for Ed Miliband – and we’ll face a continuing fight under any Government a year from now.

Our members – across all the unions – expect us to deliver united action for fair pay in the autumn.

They know we didn’t get everyone out (and that we never will) but expect us to do our best to maximise the impact of their action (including the impact of favourable publicity).

They know the law is against us but don’t expect us to run away from it.

They know that the leaders of each union want to promote their own union – but can tolerate this if together our unions can show unity.

They know we would be less worse off under a Labour Government, but expect more than Labour will offer us.

Tuesday’s meeting of the Executive of the NJC Trade Union Side needs to start getting this right.

Unity is strength in the fight for fair pay

I blogged about the publicised decision of our National Joint Council to call for further strike action on 30 September. The news report on which I based that blog post is still online (thanks to Google) but is no longer available on the UNISON website.

The bulletin to local government branches of UNISON, dated Wednesday was unequivocal;

“The UNISON NJC Committee met yesterday to review the J10 strike and decide next steps in our campaign.  It has decided to hold a second day of strike action on Tuesday 30 September rather than the earlier dates suggested.  30^th September is the last date local government pay is above the National Minimum Wage. On 1 October, SCP 5 will fall below the new NMW of £6.50 per hour.

This means that the ballot timetables for the 15 national MATs have now been revised to enable members to take action on 30 September. Education and Children’s Services will issue separate guidance about this and related matters shortly.

The NJC TU Side Executive is meeting on 29 July to discuss coordinating second wave action and further information will follow. The UNISON NJC Committee also agreed to set a date for industrial action in October should there be no movement by the Employers.”   

The news is out there. Branches have passed it on. It’s on our twitter feed.

The GMB Press Office on the other hand hasn’t tweeted about the dispute since announcing the success of action on 10 July. Informally I have been advised that “The GMB’s current position is further day of strike in the week commencing 13^th October along with other public sector unions. But with a day of non-strike protest in August.”  

UNITE also lauded the success of the action but, the inconclusive outcome of the (National Joint Council ) NJC trade union side on 22 July hasn’ t  produced any subsequent reference to the local government pay dispute on twitter. It appears that the Executive of the NJC Trade Union Side, which will meet next Tuesday, may not produce a consensus in support of action on 30 September.

There are some interesting silences within UNISON over the past week also.

Our leaders – lay and full-time – across all three local government unions (and the other unions whose support we all need, as they need ours) need to be dunked repeatedly in cold water until an agreed strategy for action on public sector pay is arrived at.

I don’t have an easy or immediate answer. Certainly if we wanted effective unified  action across all unions we would not want to start from here – but that is the one thing about which we have no choice.

We should – but do not – have a unified rank and file movement across the major trade unions so that activists could try to hammer out a common position for which we could argue. We do not have such an effective body. All we have are risible front organisations, declining captives of sectarianism and obscure fossils (and worthy campaigns which are incapable of intervening in such matters).

In the absence of such a unifying force we probably need to start by finding some way to have an honest debate about our strengths, weaknesses and tactics. This has to be conducted in public, because otherwise it is hidden from our members, even though this means that it is also conducted in full view of the employers.

There are a few things we shouldn’t do.

We shouldn’t “talk up” the impact of and support for strike action to the extent that it bears no relation to the experience of our activists (ourselves) on our picket lines. We need to be honest about the room for improvement which always exists, and try to assess it accurately so that we can try to use it. To improve. This is difficult because such honesty will always be seized upon by the defeatists and careerists to call off action – but it is unavoidable if we are to make an informed assessment of what to do next.

We shouldn’t pull our punches when criticising the absurd timidity of our officials in the face of this year’s bugbear “legal jeopardy”. I confess to guilt on this point since I haven’t said before that it is both pathetic and absurd that UNISON has adopted such a restrictive approach to balloting members in Academies. (It is not acceptable that branches and Regions are told that the UNISON Centre may need them to chip in to run ballots as it lacks capacity. UNISON staff should be redeployed as necessary and immediately to ensure we ballot everyone we can.)

We shouldn’t fall in to the trap of “union chauvinism”. I don’t support UNISON for the sake of supporting my own union – indeed one of the most read posts on this blog dealt entirely with circumstances in which UNISON was falling short. In the same way, GMB members shouldn’t be precious about defending GMB, nor UNITE, nor NUT members – not even members of PCS. Socialist trade union activists are on the side of the workers (rather than this or that trade union) and, as a general rule, we want to see a meaningful unity of trade union leaderships, not to volunteer as cheerleaders even for the most leftwing.

We shouldn’t subordinate our fight for a decent pay rise to the cause of supporting a change of Government through support for the TUC demonstration in October. We should support that demonstration of course – and we should certainly be doing all we can to see that we have both a Labour Government and a movement capable of exerting meaningful pressure upon it. We are not, however, a stage army for Ed Miliband – and we’ll face a continuing fight under any Government a year from now.

Our members – across all the unions – expect us to deliver united action for fair pay in the autumn.

They know we didn’t get everyone out (and that we never will) but expect us to do our best to maximise the impact of their action (including the impact of favourable publicity).

They know the law is against us but don’t expect us to run away from it.

They know that the leaders of each union want to promote their own union – but can tolerate this if together our unions can show unity.

They know we would be less worse off under a Labour Government, but expect more than Labour will offer us.

Tuesday’s meeting of the Executive of the NJC Trade Union Side needs to start getting this right.

Holiday reading recommendation

As a service to regular readers of this blog, Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak, (and since I am on leave) I draw attention to the availability of the ultimate beach-side holiday reading opportunity – the 2014 UNISON Rule Book.

This incorporates the amendments made at last month’s Conference.

Rule E.4 is still there.

Will it be complied with?

Holiday reading recommendation

As a service to regular readers of this blog, Sid and Doris Rule-Book-Anorak, (and since I am on leave) I draw attention to the availability of the ultimate beach-side holiday reading opportunity – the 2014 UNISON Rule Book.

This incorporates the amendments made at last month’s Conference.

Rule E.4 is still there.

Will it be complied with?

All out on 30 September!

It's good that we have a date for further strike action in the fight for fair pay for local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - Tuesday 30 September (that's #S30 for those twittering about I imagine).

It won't be easy to persuade members to take further strike action. There is not a tidal wave of such anger that rank and file workers are only being held back by timidity or perfidy within our movement.  (That's almost never true).

It is, however, necessary that we persuade our members to take further action if we are to stand a chance of a decent settlement. ‎In order to win this (unavoidably) difficult argument, we need to make a convincing case that the sacrifices which we will ask our members to make will be worthwhile.

That means that we need to demonstrate that we have a coherent, thought out strategy to maximise political pressure on‎ the relevant decision makers to stand a realistic chance of securing a significantly improved pay offer.

I think that those who argued, at yesterday's meeting of the UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee ‎for the previous decision that we should take two consecutive days of strike action can make a plausible claim to having advanced such a strategy. They were, however, in a minority and a decision has been taken for a strike on 30 September and the possibility of further action in October.

We never get to make history in circumstances of our own choosing - and these are certainly not those. What we do get to do, if we are UNISON activists, is follow our leadership when it shows us the sort of leadership the lack of which we so often criticise - even if we have tactical differences.

And for those who are not in UNISON, many of whom have spent some time in recent years criticising the unwillingness of UNISON's leadership to lead the fights that they would like to have seen, here is your test. Can you (in UNITE) set aside illusions in selective action to join us on 30 September and thereafter? Can you (in the NUT) call for the further (united) action on 30 September which will have the impact you have been looking for? Will you (in all unions, including the GMB) join us or will you stand aside?

And - perhaps most importantly of all - will members of UNISON's Health Group Executive accept that a strike ballot which closes on 18 September can support action on 30 September? And will you call for the united action between health and local government which shows what UNISON might be and might achieve?

‎Should answers to any of these questions begin to emerge I shall be sure to blog further!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

All out on 30 September!

It's good that we have a date for further strike action in the fight for fair pay for local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - Tuesday 30 September (that's #S30 for those twittering about I imagine).

It won't be easy to persuade members to take further strike action. There is not a tidal wave of such anger that rank and file workers are only being held back by timidity or perfidy within our movement.  (That's almost never true).

It is, however, necessary that we persuade our members to take further action if we are to stand a chance of a decent settlement. ‎In order to win this (unavoidably) difficult argument, we need to make a convincing case that the sacrifices which we will ask our members to make will be worthwhile.

That means that we need to demonstrate that we have a coherent, thought out strategy to maximise political pressure on‎ the relevant decision makers to stand a realistic chance of securing a significantly improved pay offer.

I think that those who argued, at yesterday's meeting of the UNISON National Joint Council (NJC) Committee ‎for the previous decision that we should take two consecutive days of strike action can make a plausible claim to having advanced such a strategy. They were, however, in a minority and a decision has been taken for a strike on 30 September and the possibility of further action in October.

We never get to make history in circumstances of our own choosing - and these are certainly not those. What we do get to do, if we are UNISON activists, is follow our leadership when it shows us the sort of leadership the lack of which we so often criticise - even if we have tactical differences.

And for those who are not in UNISON, many of whom have spent some time in recent years criticising the unwillingness of UNISON's leadership to lead the fights that they would like to have seen, here is your test. Can you (in UNITE) set aside illusions in selective action to join us on 30 September and thereafter? Can you (in the NUT) call for the further (united) action on 30 September which will have the impact you have been looking for? Will you (in all unions, including the GMB) join us or will you stand aside?

And - perhaps most importantly of all - will members of UNISON's Health Group Executive accept that a strike ballot which closes on 18 September can support action on 30 September? And will you call for the united action between health and local government which shows what UNISON might be and might achieve?

‎Should answers to any of these questions begin to emerge I shall be sure to blog further!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Health and local government - strike together over pay!

http://www.unison.org.uk/news/unison-moves-to-ballot-angry-nhs-workers-over-pay

In a development which will be welcomed by all those who want to see fair pay for all public service workers (and an increase in living standards for workers more generally), UNISON today announces a ballot for industrial action‎.

The strike ballot will run from 28 August to 18 September, meaning that the earliest date for strike action would be the last week in September. I hope that friends and comrades at today's meeting of UNISON's National Joint Council (NJC) Committee, considering the timing of further action over local government pay, will take note of this development.

We are strongest when we strike together!

‎

Two minor supplementary points. Our members in Scotland are part of neither dispute, their pay negotiations already having been devolved (whatever the outcome of another vote coming up soon). Also, there is a contradiction between striking for higher pay and supporting Ed Balls' "austerity-lite" economic policy for an incoming Labour Government.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Health and local government - strike together over pay!

http://www.unison.org.uk/news/unison-moves-to-ballot-angry-nhs-workers-over-pay

In a development which will be welcomed by all those who want to see fair pay for all public service workers (and an increase in living standards for workers more generally), UNISON today announces a ballot for industrial action‎.

The strike ballot will run from 28 August to 18 September, meaning that the earliest date for strike action would be the last week in September. I hope that friends and comrades at today's meeting of UNISON's National Joint Council (NJC) Committee, considering the timing of further action over local government pay, will take note of this development.

We are strongest when we strike together!

‎

Two minor supplementary points. Our members in Scotland are part of neither dispute, their pay negotiations already having been devolved (whatever the outcome of another vote coming up soon). Also, there is a contradiction between striking for higher pay and supporting Ed Balls' "austerity-lite" economic policy for an incoming Labour Government.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Unions back austerity?

http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/trade-unions-vote-against-ending-austerity-in-2015/

My attention has been drawn to the above, from Jon Lansman of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (and from many other places, including, on this occasion, a van in the car park outside Labour's National Policy Forum).

‎Jon reports on the overwhelming support for the foolish decision to endorse Ed Ball's hare-brained scheme to continue Tory austerity policies in the first year of a Labour Government. This policy of "austerity-lite", intended to burnish Labour's reputation for economic competence subordinates fiscal policy to unreliable electoral calculation.

‎As a local government worker in a borough facing the loss of fully half it's central government funding between 2010 and 2017, this decision suggests no hope of respite even if Ed Miliband is in Number 10 a year from now with a solid majority in the Commons. As soon as we finish the TUC demonstration this October we had best start planning one for the autumn of 2015, since Chancellor Balls will be promising us more of the same.

All of this will be music to the ears of those involved in the various vanity publishing outfits with electoral ambitions, who will repeat their calls to the trade unions to break our links with Labour and back other candidates. However, these comrades will be missing the target quite spectacularly.

The problem is not that the trade unions will back Labour in spite of an economic policy which is contrary to the interests of our members (and to the health of the economy - but that's a different blog post for another time). That may be A problem - but it isn't THE problem.

The problem is that trade union delegates at the National Policy Forum voted to support Ed Balls and against the policies of their own unions and of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The question we need to be asking is not "why do we support Labour?"

The question we need to be asking is "why do we fail to support our own policies when we are involved in Labour's policy-making machinery?"

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Unions back austerity?

http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/trade-unions-vote-against-ending-austerity-in-2015/

A hat tip to Comrade Berry on Facebook for drawing to my attention the report above, from Jon Lansman of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (and from many other places, including, on this occasion, a van in the car park outside Labour's National Policy Forum).

‎Jon reports on the overwhelming support for the foolish decision to endorse Ed Ball's hare-brained scheme to continue Tory austerity policies in the first year of a Labour Government. This policy of "austerity-lite", intended to burnish Labour's reputation for economic competence subordinates fiscal policy to unreliable electoral calculation.

‎As a local government worker in a borough facing the loss of fully half it's central government funding between 2010 and 2017, this decision suggests no hope of respite even if Ed Miliband is in Number 10 a year from now with a solid majority in the Commons. As soon as we finish the TUC demonstration this October we had best start planning one for the autumn of 2015, since Chancellor Balls will be promising us more of the same.

All of this will be music to the ears of those involved in the various vanity publishing outfits with electoral ambitions, who will repeat their calls to the trade unions to break our links with Labour and back other candidates. However, these comrades will be missing the target quite spectacularly.

The problem is not that the trade unions will back Labour in spite of an economic policy which is contrary to the interests of our members (and to the health of the economy - but that's a different blog post for another time). That may be A problem - but it isn't THE problem.

The problem is that trade union delegates at the National Policy Forum voted to support Ed Balls and against the policies of their own unions and of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The question we need to be asking is not "why do we support Labour?"

The question we need to be asking is "why do we fail to support our own policies when we are involved in Labour's policy-making machinery?"

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Taking the movement to the workers

I've helped set up at the first day of the Lambeth Country Show (#LCS40 for those of you twittering) and will be back tomorrow.

As one of the largest community events in London, the Country Show absolutely needs a trade union presence - and it is a tribute to the work of our Trades Council that we have a "Union Village" marquee which brings together local union branches and progressive campaigning organisations.

A generation ago - when half of all workers were in trade unions and the great majority worked in unionised sectors where their pay and conditions were set by collective bargaining - we could rely upon our workplace profile to know that workers knew where we were and what we were.

Now - although the retreat of trade union presence at the "point of production" may frequently be overstated - it is nevertheless the case that the fragmentation of the workforce and decline of collective bargaining together mean that we cannot rely upon workers coming to the movement.

We have to take the movement to the workers.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Taking the movement to the workers

I've helped set up at the first day of the Lambeth Country Show (#LCS40 for those of you twittering) and will be back tomorrow.

As one of the largest community events in London, the Country Show absolutely needs a trade union presence - and it is a tribute to the work of our Trades Council that we have a "Union Village" marquee which brings together local union branches and progressive campaigning organisations.

A generation ago - when half of all workers were in trade unions and the great majority worked in unionised sectors where their pay and conditions were set by collective bargaining - we could rely upon our workplace profile to know that workers knew where we were and what we were.

Now - although the retreat of trade union presence at the "point of production" may frequently be overstated - it is nevertheless the case that the fragmentation of the workforce and decline of collective bargaining together mean that we cannot rely upon workers coming to the movement.

We have to take the movement to the workers.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Labour NEC elections - vote for the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance

Like all other individual members of the Labour Party I have an opportunity to vote in elections for Labour’s National Executive – and will be following the recommendation of the Labour Representation Committee to vote for the candidates of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance.

Alongside the pressure we need to put within our trade unions for our unions to stand up for our progressive policies, we need to find allies in the Constituency Labour Parties committed to a radical reforming Labour Government.

Vote for:

Ann Black

Ken Livingstone

Kate Osamor

Christine Shawcroft

Darren Williams

Pete Willsman

A flyer for distribution at Labour Party meetings, or to Labour Party members, is online here.

Members can vote online at www.labour.org.uk/Ballot2014 - votes must be cast by 5pm on Monday 18th August.   

Labour NEC elections - vote for the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance

Like all other individual members of the Labour Party I have an opportunity to vote in elections for Labour’s National Executive – and will be following the recommendation of the Labour Representation Committee to vote for the candidates of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance.

Alongside the pressure we need to put within our trade unions for our unions to stand up for our progressive policies, we need to find allies in the Constituency Labour Parties committed to a radical reforming Labour Government.

Vote for:

Ann Black

Ken Livingstone

Kate Osamor

Christine Shawcroft

Darren Williams

Pete Willsman

A flyer for distribution at Labour Party meetings, or to Labour Party members, is online here.

Members can vote online at www.labour.org.uk/Ballot2014 - votes must be cast by 5pm on Monday 18th August.   

It is up to the trade unions whether Labour's manifesto is worth voting for

http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/if-the-trade-unions-simply-vote-for-what-they-believe-in-labour-can-still-present-a-bold-popular-programme/

I refer her to the article above by Labour Left stalwart Jon Lansman.

‎I won't repeat here the detail, but will take the liberty of trying to summarise the points made in a couple of sentences.

Every reactionary move and disappointment in the Labour Party since Blair ditched Clause IV (and before) has rested upon the tacit (or not so tacit) support for the Party leadership from union heirarchies.

If the trade union leaderships want progressive outcomes from Labour's National Policy Forum they have the power to achieve them (whether - and here I am elaborating a little - by putting together a majority at the NPF or by creating a large enough minority that the matter has to be voted on at Conference.)

‎Everyone who absents themselves from the Labour Party, or engages in this or that project of leftist vanity publishing with electoral ambitions, renders themselves irrelevant to the fight in hand - but those of us who can see what needs to be done ought not to waste time and energy on pointless arguments with those determined upon the purity of such irrelevance at the next General Election.

Our real adversaries are twofold.

First, there are those in the ranks of the Labour Party who remain committed to the ultra-Blairite project of breaking the link with the trade unions.

Secondly, our most important adversaries are those within our own trade unions who will fall (often willingly) for the tired and unconvincing argument that we must not "rock the boat" or "defeat the Leader" in the year before a General Election.

Jon Lansman rightly castigates those who mistakenly think that the problem is a reactionary Labour Party dragging trade unions to the right. A similar error is made by those who fail to understand that there are not separate bureaucracies of the Party and trade unions, but a single, interchangeable caste of careerists, some of whom hold positions in both "wings" of our movement.

Our problem is with that layer - and with all those who won't push for the bold, radical policies which would make Labour popular in 2015 (and which could be pretty much extracted from the policy decisions of recent annual meetings of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).‎)

‎

The trade union leaders have the power to push Ed Miliband into adopting the forthright policies that can deliver a Labour majority next year. If he does not adopt those policies it will only be because our trade unions will have refused to use our muscle.

The General Secretaries of the big unions have a once in a lifetime opportunity to leave a positive legacy. 

Watch this space.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

It is up to the trade unions whether Labour's manifesto is worth voting for

http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/07/if-the-trade-unions-simply-vote-for-what-they-believe-in-labour-can-still-present-a-bold-popular-programme/

A hat tip is due to a Mr Berry on Facebook for alerting your blogger to the excellent article above by Labour Left stalwart Jon Lansman.

‎I won't repeat here the detail, but will take the liberty of trying to summarise the points made in a couple of sentences.

Every reactionary move and disappointment in the Labour Party since Blair ditched Clause IV (and before) has rested upon the tacit (or not so tacit) support for the Party leadership from union heirarchies.

If the trade union leaderships want progressive outcomes from Labour's National Policy Forum they have the power to achieve them (whether - and here I am elaborating a little - by putting together a majority at the NPF or by creating a large enough minority that the matter has to be voted on at Conference.)

‎Everyone who absents themselves from the Labour Party, or engages in this or that project of leftist vanity publishing with electoral ambitions, renders themselves irrelevant to the fight in hand - but those of us who can see what needs to be done ought not to waste time and energy on pointless arguments with those determined upon the purity of such irrelevance at the next General Election.

Our real adversaries are twofold.

First, there are those in the ranks of the Labour Party who remain committed to the ultra-Blairite project of breaking the link with the trade unions.

Secondly, our most important adversaries are those within our own trade unions who will fall (often willingly) for the tired and unconvincing argument that we must not "rock the boat" or "defeat the Leader" in the year before a General Election.

Jon Lansman rightly castigates those who mistakenly think that the problem is a reactionary Labour Party dragging trade unions to the right. A similar error is made by those who fail to understand that there are not separate bureaucracies of the Party and trade unions, but a single, interchangeable caste of careerists, some of whom hold positions in both "wings" of our movement.

Our problem is with that layer - and with all those who won't push for the bold, radical policies which would make Labour popular in 2015 (and which could be pretty much extracted from the policy decisions of recent annual meetings of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).‎)

‎

The trade union leaders have the power to push Ed Miliband into adopting the forthright policies that can deliver a Labour majority next year. If he does not adopt those policies it will only be because our trade unions will have refused to use our muscle.

The General Secretaries of the big unions have a once in a lifetime opportunity to leave a positive legacy. 

Watch this space.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Stand with workers at the Ritzy: demand the living wage

http://action.shareaction.org/page/speakout/ritzy-living-wage?js=false

The inspiring struggle of the workers at our local cinema, the Ritzy in Brixton, who have been striking for months in their campaign for the Living Wage, is stepped up a notch today as they and their supporters are marching through Central London to take their message to cinema goers‎ across the city.

Those of us fortunate enough to be attending the Greater London Employers Forum this afternoon, and therefore unable to attend the demonstration, can support the campaign online at the link above - and can join the boycott of the Ritzy and all other cinemas in the Picture‎house chain.

Lambeth UNISON is proud to support our friends at the Ritzy.‎ Solidarity with the BECTU members at the Ritzy is an excellent way in which public sector workers can break down the false divide between private and public sector workers - as the Ritzy strikers themselves did by taking strike action alongside us on 10 July.

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Stand with workers at the Ritzy: demand the living wage

http://action.shareaction.org/page/speakout/ritzy-living-wage?js=false

The inspiring struggle of the workers at our local cinema, the Ritzy in Brixton, who have been striking for months in their campaign for the Living Wage, is stepped up a notch today as they and their supporters are marching through Central London to take their message to cinema goers‎ across the city.

Those of us fortunate enough to be attending the Greater London Employers Forum this afternoon, and therefore unable to attend the demonstration, can support the campaign online at the link above - and can join the boycott of the Ritzy and all other cinemas in the Picture‎house chain.

Lambeth UNISON is proud to support our friends at the Ritzy.‎ Solidarity with the BECTU members at the Ritzy is an excellent way in which public sector workers can break down the false divide between private and public sector workers - as the Ritzy strikers themselves did by taking strike action alongside us on 10 July.

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Labour prepares for power or does it?

Post from Andrew Berry, UNISON National Labour Link Committee in a personal capacity.

This weekend is one of the most important events on Labours calendar the National Policy Forum (NPF). With most of the democracy torn out of the party conference it will be the policy forum that will set the agenda and manifesto for the election in less then 10 months. The policy forum consists of  constituency elected delegates trade union delegates amongst others   http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy_Forum

Whilst we had a good a useful discussion on policy at the UNISON  Labour Link Forum the other week we will have delegates at the NPF who must remember Labour Link Policy is subservient to policy passed at our National Delegates Conference. While some Labour policies are welcome and  they must be firmed up including the repeal of the Health and Social Care bill and Lobbying bill and Scrapping of the bedroom tax. UNISON delegates however must this weekend fight tooth and nail, for anti austerity agenda, commitments to Tory spending limits are simply not acceptable to our members facing more cuts higher workloads and lower wages. We need commitments to end the pay freeze, Labour has clearly made the running that there is a cost of living crisis therefore Labour must end the public sector real terms pay cuts otherwise it's just talk.

Further we need commitments to fund public services including Local Government and the NHS to renationalise rail, mail and energy, amongst others, Labour has marginal shifted to the left from Blairism in now accepting that capitalism can not have free reign however as Tony Benn said " we are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and define it finer values". Labour should commit to ending policies it started including the attacks disability benefit and the reassessments never mind just sack ATOS. Reverse tuition fees and end academies school bring all state schools back into the local authority control. Labour must take on UKIP and positivity support immigration.

Getting few crumbs from our policies is not only not enough for our members but will make Labour look timid and therefore less likely to win the election. 2015 needs to see Labour not just in power but to using that Power. The Trades Unions can and must make sure the manifesto is positive one that our members can get behind.

Schedule C.7 of the UNISON Rule Book

‎As I was leaving the office this evening after a meeting of the Pension Fund Investment Panel literally no one asked my views on the provisions of Schedule C.7 of the UNISON Rule Book.

Regulars outside the Lambeth branch office (Sid and Doris Skunk-weed) will be able to confirm that, of all the things one can be offered on our corner of Acre Lane,‎ an opportunity to offer an opinion on Schedule C of the UNISON Rule Book is very rarely one of them.

Therefore I shall share my views here.

Schedule C governs elections within UNISON, including those we are required to hold by law (for General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC)) and some which we are not (Service Group Executives).

Schedule C.7 gives the NEC‎ the power to determine, among other things, the method of voting in our internal elections ("whether to be by simple majority, by single transferable vote, by multi-transferable vote, or by some other system").

In my eleven years on our NEC we have yet to have a serious discussion about whether we should use any system other than simple majority in any of the elections which we have held. We continue to use the system we have used, without debating this.

One consequence of the use of the "simple majority" method (in which ballot papers are marked with a cross or tick and whoever gets the most votes wins, regardless of whether they have a majority of the votes cast) is that it imposes some discipline upon those of like minds to stand only one candidate so as not to "spilt the vote."

This may be an approach welcomed by those who value the approach to democracy developed in the former Soviet Union (and not only because they can rest assured that critics to their left will never manage such discipline and restraint). 

However, it may be unhealthy for the culture of our trade union that employees (and some lay activists perhaps) are "whipped" into line to support an "official" candidate (not, of course that that ever happens).

It may be that it would be healthier for UNISON if some preferential system of voting allowed members to express their opinions in greater depth, and meant that a wider range of candidates could take the risk of offering themselves to our members without fear that their supporters, by backing their chosen candidate, might contribute to the victory of a candidate they would oppose over another candidate whom they would have preferred.

Or it may not.

There are arguments on both sides.

I would simply like to hear those arguments before we embark upon another General Secretary election.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

Schedule C.7 of the UNISON Rule Book

‎As I was leaving the office this evening after a meeting of the Pension Fund Investment Panel literally no one asked my views on the provisions of Schedule C.7 of the UNISON Rule Book.

Regulars outside the Lambeth branch office (Sid and Doris Skunk-weed) will be able to confirm that, of all the things one can be offered on our corner of Acre Lane,‎ an opportunity to offer an opinion on Schedule C of the UNISON Rule Book is very rarely one of them.

Therefore I shall share my views here.

Schedule C governs elections within UNISON, including those we are required to hold by law (for General Secretary and the National Executive Council (NEC)) and some which we are not (Service Group Executives).

Schedule C.7 gives the NEC‎ the power to determine, among other things, the method of voting in our internal elections ("whether to be by simple majority, by single transferable vote, by multi-transferable vote, or by some other system").

In my eleven years on our NEC we have yet to have a serious discussion about whether we should use any system other than simple majority in any of the elections which we have held. We continue to use the system we have used, without debating this.

One consequence of the use of the "simple majority" method (in which ballot papers are marked with a cross or tick and whoever gets the most votes wins, regardless of whether they have a majority of the votes cast) is that it imposes some discipline upon those of like minds to stand only one candidate so as not to "spilt the vote."

This may be an approach welcomed by those who value the approach to democracy developed in the former Soviet Union (and not only because they can rest assured that critics to their left will never manage such discipline and restraint). 

However, it may be unhealthy for the culture of our trade union that employees (and some lay activists perhaps) are "whipped" into line to support an "official" candidate (not, of course that that ever happens).

It may be that it would be healthier for UNISON if some preferential system of voting allowed members to express their opinions in greater depth, and meant that a wider range of candidates could take the risk of offering themselves to our members without fear that their supporters, by backing their chosen candidate, might contribute to the victory of a candidate they would oppose over another candidate whom they would have preferred.

Or it may not.

There are arguments on both sides.

I would simply like to hear those arguments before we embark upon another General Secretary election.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

UNISON's obscured pachyderm

At this year’s National Delegate Conference the elephant in the room was the, then unknown but widely anticipated, result of the local government strike ballot. That large elephant quite obscured another pachyderm quietly lurking in the corner, the forthcoming UNISON General Secretary election.

Perusal of the UNISON Rule Book reveals that Rule E.3.2 provides that; “The General Secretary shall be elected and shall hold office for the maximum period of time prescribed by law.”  We are therefore subject to the requirement of Section 46 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to elect our General Secretary every five years. However Section 58 of the 1992 Act exempts from the requirement to face re-election an incumbent General Secretary approaching retirement (in certain specified circumstances).

Diligent readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) may recollect my report of the unprecedented special meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council in January 2010, which had been called to receive a report which made specific reference to Section 58. That report concluded that, at that time, the General Secretary had “a rule book entitlement to remain in office until his retirement date in line with the legislation.” Whether matters were really that clear rapidly became a moot point, since the General Secretary specifically sought a further election in order to “renew his mandate” (which he duly did).

However, careful readers of the report to that special meeting noted that it also said that “the General Secretary may have the right to stay in post until 29 May 2013, but the Presidential Team consider that the NEC would need to endorse that right.” Whilst that wasn’t a suggestion that the NEC should have had, in those circumstances, recourse to its power to interpret the Rule Book (as had been suggested by one irritating individual), it did tend to imply that there might have been legal as well as political objections to reliance on Section 58 in 2010.

Since I have retained an inquisitive nature, and have abandoned my ill-fated quest for popularity within our Union, I have, as I did five years ago, asked, over recent months, about the timetable for the next General Secretary election (which is quite obviously approaching but about which nothing has been said at any meeting to which all NEC members are invited). All I have been told is that the Presidential Team will deal with this matter when the time is right.

If there was room for doubt about the applicability of Section 58 last time, there is even more room now. The “retirement age” to which the act refers is defined as “the earlier of—

(a) the age fixed by, or in accordance with, the rules of the union for him to retire from the position in question, or

(b) the age which is for the time being pensionable age (within the meaning given by the rules in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995).”

Since our incumbent General Secretary attained that age last year Section 58(2)(c) would seem to rule out the application of the retirement age exemption in a future election.

Indeed the whole concept of “retirement age” seems pretty much defunct. I doubt that any trade union could safely rely on Section 58 to avoid holding a General Secretary election any more, even if to do so were not (as it would be) politically suicidal (particularly for a major union at a time when our opponents are attacking us in every way they can think of).

UNISON is committed not to discriminate on grounds of age and so an incumbent past state pension age is perfectly entitled to be a candidate if they want to.

However, there must be an election for a UNISON General Secretary whose term of office will commence on 1 January 2016. The time taken from an NEC decision on an election timetable until results are announced is of the order of five months, therefore a General Secretary election run after the 2015 General Election would give very little time for a new General Secretary (were one elected) to have a handover with the incumbent (although there might well be a political case to be made for electing a General Secretary once we know what sort of Government they will be dealing with).

There will not now be a meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council until October, which would be the last scheduled meeting that could agree a timetable for a General Secretary election to conclude before the General Election. This question cannot therefore be avoided any longer.

UNISON's obscured pachyderm

At this year’s National Delegate Conference the elephant in the room was the, then unknown but widely anticipated, result of the local government strike ballot. That large elephant quite obscured another pachyderm quietly lurking in the corner, the forthcoming UNISON General Secretary election.

Perusal of the UNISON Rule Book reveals that Rule E.3.2 provides that; “The General Secretary shall be elected and shall hold office for the maximum period of time prescribed by law.”  We are therefore subject to the requirement of Section 46 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to elect our General Secretary every five years. However Section 58 of the 1992 Act exempts from the requirement to face re-election an incumbent General Secretary approaching retirement (in certain specified circumstances).

Diligent readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) may recollect my report of the unprecedented special meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council in January 2010, which had been called to receive a report which made specific reference to Section 58. That report concluded that, at that time, the General Secretary had “a rule book entitlement to remain in office until his retirement date in line with the legislation.” Whether matters were really that clear rapidly became a moot point, since the General Secretary specifically sought a further election in order to “renew his mandate” (which he duly did).

However, careful readers of the report to that special meeting noted that it also said that “the General Secretary may have the right to stay in post until 29 May 2013, but the Presidential Team consider that the NEC would need to endorse that right.” Whilst that wasn’t a suggestion that the NEC should have had, in those circumstances, recourse to its power to interpret the Rule Book (as had been suggested by one irritating individual), it did tend to imply that there might have been legal as well as political objections to reliance on Section 58 in 2010.

Since I have retained an inquisitive nature, and have abandoned my ill-fated quest for popularity within our Union, I have, as I did five years ago, asked, over recent months, about the timetable for the next General Secretary election (which is quite obviously approaching but about which nothing has been said at any meeting to which all NEC members are invited). All I have been told is that the Presidential Team will deal with this matter when the time is right.

If there was room for doubt about the applicability of Section 58 last time, there is even more room now. The “retirement age” to which the act refers is defined as “the earlier of—

(a) the age fixed by, or in accordance with, the rules of the union for him to retire from the position in question, or

(b) the age which is for the time being pensionable age (within the meaning given by the rules in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions Act 1995).”

Since our incumbent General Secretary attained that age last year Section 58(2)(c) would seem to rule out the application of the retirement age exemption in a future election.

Indeed the whole concept of “retirement age” seems pretty much defunct. I doubt that any trade union could safely rely on Section 58 to avoid holding a General Secretary election any more, even if to do so were not (as it would be) politically suicidal (particularly for a major union at a time when our opponents are attacking us in every way they can think of).

UNISON is committed not to discriminate on grounds of age and so an incumbent past state pension age is perfectly entitled to be a candidate if they want to.

However, there must be an election for a UNISON General Secretary whose term of office will commence on 1 January 2016. The time taken from an NEC decision on an election timetable until results are announced is of the order of five months, therefore a General Secretary election run after the 2015 General Election would give very little time for a new General Secretary (were one elected) to have a handover with the incumbent (although there might well be a political case to be made for electing a General Secretary once we know what sort of Government they will be dealing with).

There will not now be a meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council until October, which would be the last scheduled meeting that could agree a timetable for a General Secretary election to conclude before the General Election. This question cannot therefore be avoided any longer.

Farewell Stuart Barber

I have blogged before about the sad loss of our former Regional Organiser, Stuart Barber, earlier this year. Today I went to his memorial service.

UNISON’s Vice President Eric Roberts, spoke of Stuart’s time as NUPE’s organiser in the London Ambulance Service, which was as eventfulas Stuart was combative.

Later, in UNISON, Stuart made a name for himself as someone who was not afraid to stand up to authority to resist racism in particular, as he did in Brent. Indeed, Stuart was prepared to take up cudgels against the senior officials of the Union which employed him when he felt it necessary.

During his years working with the Lambeth branch – when we did not always see eye to eye – Stuart was forthright in exposing the mismanagement of our members employed by OFSTED – taking their concerns all the way to Parliament.

Stuart was part of a generation of worker militants trained by the trade union movement to become full time officials, for whom the politics of the “official left” of the movement (i.e. the then Communist Party) were axiomatic and who therefore understood the essential importance of the independence of the trade union from the employer (whilst perhaps failing to analyse the “relative autonomy” of the employees of the trade unions from their membership).

Stuart did not always endear himself to Lambeth’s activists – and it may have been a weakness that he did not see that some younger worker militants, whose politics he did not share, were in many ways his successors in different times. Nevertheless he was an example of the commitment and dedication which our movement will always need.

I miss our arguments and disagreements and respect the memory of a fine trade union official.

Farewell Stuart Barber

I have blogged before about the sad loss of our former Regional Organiser, Stuart Barber, earlier this year. Today I went to his memorial service.

UNISON’s Vice President Eric Roberts, spoke of Stuart’s time as NUPE’s organiser in the London Ambulance Service, which was as eventful as Stuart was combative.

Later, in UNISON, Stuart made a name for himself as someone who was not afraid to stand up to authority to resist racism in particular, as he did in Brent. Indeed, Stuart was prepared to take up cudgels against the senior officials of the Union which employed him when he felt it necessary.

During his years working with the Lambeth branch – when we did not always see eye to eye – Stuart was forthright in exposing the mismanagement of our members employed by OFSTED – taking their concerns all the way to Parliament.

Stuart was part of a generation of worker militants trained by the trade union movement to become full time officials, for whom the politics of the “official left” of the movement (i.e. the then Communist Party) were axiomatic and who therefore understood the essential importance of the independence of the trade union from the employer (whilst perhaps failing to analyse the “relative autonomy” of the employees of the trade unions from their membership).

Stuart did not always endear himself to Lambeth’s activists – and it may have been a weakness that he did not see that some younger worker militants, whose politics he did not share, were in many ways his successors in different times. Nevertheless he was an example of the commitment and dedication which our movement will always need.

I miss our arguments and disagreements and respect the memory of a fine trade union official.

After #J10 - What next?

‎It's a little early to try to make a thorough assessment of the support for, and impact of, today's mass public sector strike. However, activists need to move fast.

Based on qualitative research (my talking to people from several branches across London at and after today's sizeable London demonstration and rally) my findings are that activists felt generally encouraged and that, whilst there were areas of weakness, there were also other areas in which support for action seemed, if anything, stronger than for the pensions strike on 30 November 2011.

From the point of view of this sample of (admittedly more active) London local government branches of UNISON it appears that we are well placed to spend the summer preparing ourselves to take more effective action for two days in September (whether that is on the dates originally proposed or - as common sense would suggest - later dates coordinated with the NUT)(and - who knows? - perhaps by then health workers may be in a position to show what they think about their treatment over pay?)

There are many lessons we can learn from today's action to apply to increasing the impact of further action. At national level - we need to ballot UNISON members in Academies. ‎At regional level - we need to mobilise our full strength (each branch should aspire to the level of representation shown today by Barnet on the London demonstration - and if that means a later time for the demonstration then so be it). At branch level - we can see our weaknesses and strive to address them.

At the same time, we must apply ourselves to our dispute itself. As inspiring - and important - as it is to act in unity with workers in other sectors, a "general strike" (or "public sector general strike"), whether of 24 hour or other duration will not arise out of exhortation or enthusiasm. (I wish it would, I want to see it, but I won't plan on the basis of aspiration alone).

What can be done‎ is to seek to coordinate the real concrete disputes which workers actually have with their employers (recognising that in the public sector all such disputes, directly or indirectly, are disputes with the Government of the day).

Local Government workers must therefore apply ourselves to our dispute and must seek the views of our members on the guidance which we should give to our negotiators. Most critically - since the act of consulting our members on any further offer would certainly delay and, quite probably, derail any further action in the early autumn, we must be sure NOT to undertake such consultation unless such further offer represents a substantial and significant improvement.

A substantial and significant improvement would mean, first an offer which was either flat-rate or very substantially bottom-loaded.‎ Secondly, the overall cost to the pay bill should significantly exceed the increase in the Retail Price Index. Without both of these conditions having been met the "improvement" in any "improved" offer would not be significant and would not be worth consulting our members on.

That (of course) is just the opinion of your author - UNISON branches in local government need urgently to engage with our members to empower the workers who struck today to control the direction of our dispute.

Of which, more later.‎ Though probably not by bulk email at 3 in the morning...

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.

After #J10 - What next?

‎It's a little early to try to make a thorough assessment of the support for, and impact of, today's mass public sector strike. However, activists need to move fast.

Based on qualitative research (my talking to people from several branches across London at and after today's sizeable London demonstration and rally) my findings are that activists felt generally encouraged and that, whilst there were areas of weakness, there were also other areas in which support for action seemed, if anything, stronger than for the pensions strike on 30 November 2011.

From the point of view of this sample of (admittedly more active) London local government branches of UNISON it appears that we are well placed to spend the summer preparing ourselves to take more effective action for two days in September (whether that is on the dates originally proposed or - as common sense would suggest - later dates coordinated with the NUT)(and - who knows? - perhaps by then health workers may be in a position to show what they think about their treatment over pay?)

There are many lessons we can learn from today's action to apply to increasing the impact of further action. At national level - we need to ballot UNISON members in Academies. ‎At regional level - we need to mobilise our full strength (each branch should aspire to the level of representation shown today by Barnet on the London demonstration - and if that means a later time for the demonstration then so be it). At branch level - we can see our weaknesses and strive to address them.

At the same time, we must apply ourselves to our dispute itself. As inspiring - and important - as it is to act in unity with workers in other sectors, a "general strike" (or "public sector general strike"), whether of 24 hour or other duration will not arise out of exhortation or enthusiasm. (I wish it would, I want to see it, but I won't plan on the basis of aspiration alone).

What can be done‎ is to seek to coordinate the real concrete disputes which workers actually have with their employers (recognising that in the public sector all such disputes, directly or indirectly, are disputes with the Government of the day).

Local Government workers must therefore apply ourselves to our dispute and must seek the views of our members on the guidance which we should give to our negotiators. Most critically - since the act of consulting our members on any further offer would certainly delay and, quite probably, derail any further action in the early autumn, we must be sure NOT to undertake such consultation unless such further offer represents a substantial and significant improvement.

A substantial and significant improvement would mean, first an offer which was either flat-rate or very substantially bottom-loaded.‎ Secondly, the overall cost to the pay bill should significantly exceed the increase in the Retail Price Index. Without both of these conditions having been met the "improvement" in any "improved" offer would not be significant and would not be worth consulting our members on.

That (of course) is just the opinion of your author - UNISON branches in local government need urgently to engage with our members to empower the workers who struck today to control the direction of our dispute.

Of which, more later.‎ Though probably not by bulk email at 3 in the morning...

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the EE network.