The current election for General Secretary of UNISON
should encourage constructive and critical scrutiny of the Union’s
achievements, and of the work of the incumbent General Secretary, in particular
over his most recent term.
One issue which UNISON members may want to consider – and
to question candidates for election about – concerns whether we want our
General Secretary carrying out other roles at the same time as being our
General Secretary. Another (not unrelated) question relates to the
appropriateness of the level of remuneration for our General Secretary.
Discussing these important questions necessitates
speaking about an individual and, in UNISON, to say that such discussion is
discouraged would be the least that could be said. There is a culture of
deference to a long serving General Secretary in the officer machine, and a
culture which confuses critical questioning with disloyalty to the Union on the
lay Executive.
Taken together with the restrictive interpretation of the
Union’s Rules adopted in the past by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) for
our sovereign National Delegate Conference (NDC), this culture has ensured that
two important questions are hardly asked in UNISON;
Do we want a General Secretary who takes on other jobs?
Do we want to pay our General Secretary £100,000 a year?
Having long abandoned a quest for popularity in UNISON, I
would like to address these two questions on the basis of the information which
is readily available and in the public domain.
As a Commissioner at the UK
Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), Dave Prentis is eligible to
claim an allowance of £4,000 but he
does not claim expenses to which he might be entitled.
The register
of interests of UKCES Commissioners reveals Dave’s other roles as follows;
1. Current employment – General Secretary
of UNISON (Family member UNISON Assistant General Secretary).
2. Appointments – Member of the Court of
the Bank of England, President of Unity Trust Bank;
3. Membership of professional bodies –
Labour Party Joint Policy Committee, TUC Executive Committee, President of
Public Services International (Family member on the TUC Executive Committee).
Having a senior union official serve on labour movement
bodies seems like a good use of time, and Dave’s role as President of the Board
of the trade union bank Unity
Trust Bank (involving 13 meetings in 2014) doesn’t lead to any other
remuneration (although obviously it takes Dave away from his duties as our
General Secretary).
More controversially within UNISON, however, from 1 June
2012 Dave Prentis has also been a Non-Executive Director of the Bank
of England, “earning” a tidy £15,000 a year for attending some meetings
(including meetings of the Remuneration Committee which determined that the
Governor of the Bank of England should earn £480,000 a year – not all public
servants suffer under the pay freeze…)
The author understands that the General Secretary passes
such earnings back to the Union,
As well he might.
As General Secretary, Dave Prentis earns (according to our
return to the Certification Officer) a gross salary of £97,211 with taxable
subsistence and car benefits of £7,462 (the Union also pays £12,762 in
employers’ national insurance costs).
Whilst this hardly puts Dave and his family in the
plutocracy it is a level of earnings which matches those of (for example) Chief
Executives and Senior Directors in local government rather more than it
corresponds to the earnings of UNISON members. With pre-tax earnings in excess
of £104,000 our General Secretary earns more than 98% of the population
(according to official
statistics).
The combined impact (upon anyone) of more than
comfortable earnings coupled with a working life rubbing shoulders with the “great
and the good” is to separate our leader from us, the workers. As Richard
Hyman puts it; “full-time officials typically
acquire interests, perspectives and resources which tend to channel union
policies towards accommodation with employers or governments and containment of
membership activism”.
The rank and file challenger to be UNISON’s General
Secretary, John Burgess,
has made clear that, if elected, he would continue to draw just the equivalent
of his social worker’s salary (which is the model for all those of us who are
elected officials at branch level seconded full time to trade union duties).
This isn’t about “hair shirt socialism” – it is about
offering members the choice of a General Secretary who will remain “one of us”,
earning what he would earn in the job which makes him a trade union member in
the first place. It is an entirely legitimate point of view to believe that our
General Secretary should be drawn from the rank and file, should devote
themselves full time to their trade union role and should enjoy material
conditions aligned to those of UNISON members.
That is my view, and I don’t think our General Secretary
should be a Governor of the Bank of England, nor do I think we should pay our
General Secretary a six figure sum.
This is not about a personal attack upon the
incumbent General Secretary.
It is about a political choice which confronts the trade
union.
There are plenty of lay activists (including, for
example, the 32 NEC members who delivered the NEC nomination to Dave Prentis)
who believe that we should have a “professional” General Secretary whose career
has been in officialdom rather than the rank and file (and who consider that
UNISON itself is honoured somehow if our senior official is invited to be part
of the Court of Governors of the Bank of England).
The question which those who take that view need to ask
themselves is whether their preferred approach has been delivering for our
members, in particular over the past five years, and that is a question to
which I will turn in further posts on this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment