The final agenda for this year’s slimline TUC is available online and, as ever, it is a veritable cornucopia of worthy sentiment. Delegates should emerge from Congress House on Wednesday 14 September supportive of trade union rights, opposed to cuts in public services and unemployment and generally thinking much as they did when they ventured into the building on Monday 12 September (although I notice that the Professional Footballers’ Association want our movement to back a single “Great Britain” football team in the 2012 Olympics – better read commentators will be able to identify whether this puts them on the same side as Lenin or Luxemburg in relation to the national question…)
Of the half dozen motions submitted on the question of pensions, which dominated last year’s Congress, UNISON’s motion does at least call upon the General Council to “support and co-ordinate close collaboration between affiliates in defence of schemes.” It is however left to PCS to place before Congress an instruction to the General Council “to give full support to industrial action against pensions cuts, including action planned for this autumn, and maximise its co-ordination.”
The General Council are rightly proud of the massive demonstration held on 26 March, and therefore go on some length about it in their Annual Report. For those who hoped that 26 March would be the commencement rather than the culmination of the efforts of the TUC, the report makes less than encouraging reading. The General Council have issued a statement, on 27 July, which is an elegant description of the diversity of campaigning activity underway up and down the country, and a plea for funds from affiliates to do more to co-ordinate this.
However, the General Council statement of 27 July doesn’t mention coordinated industrial action as any part of our campaign of opposition to the Government, even though the Coalition’s determination to attack public service pensions provides an unprecedented opportunity for just such united action. The Report of the General Council does find room to mention that “on 30 June, four TUC unions – ATL, NUT, PCS and UCU – took industrial action in response to the Government’s proposed changes to public service pensions. The action gained widespread media coverage and reports suggested that up to 750,000 teachers and civil servants supported the action. The Government’s claims that changes were driven by the issue of ‘affordability’ were clearly exposed during the media coverage on the day.” Strangely the General Council claim no credit for having helped to co-ordinate this action, perhaps because they didn’t.
At any event, any reader of pages 83 to 85 of the General Council report will realise that the authors consider the negotiations which the General Council have been coordinating are worthy of far more attention, although whereas a single day of action by four smaller trade unions clearly achieved some progress it is difficult to see what progress has been made in these negotiations.
The General Council acknowledged in their statement on 27 July that our movement can take the leadership of the fight against the Government’s cuts, but it seems that when we have the opportunity to use our power as trade unionists to resist the Government on ground on which it might be defeated, our leaders are less than willing.
Unity is needed every bit as much on the picket line as on the Olympic football field...
Showing posts with label TUC reports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TUC reports. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
SEIU -v- UNITE HERE and comments in the UK
I have no wish to become involved in disputes within the US Labour movement - when we get a decent movement in this country that fights for its members I'll begin to feel able to preach in that way!
However, in response to a comment on this blog arising from a report in Tribune I have been to have a look at what is going on.
Some people are critical of the Service Employees International Union for their organising tactics - which are seen as too close to the employers.
Others defend the SEIU.
I do not know the rights and wrongs of this - but if the SEIU are in the right then they are ill served by the support of anonymous bloggers who act as cheerleaders for the UNISON leadership who have comprehensively failed to mobilise the strength of our 1.3 million members.
However, in response to a comment on this blog arising from a report in Tribune I have been to have a look at what is going on.
Some people are critical of the Service Employees International Union for their organising tactics - which are seen as too close to the employers.
Others defend the SEIU.
I do not know the rights and wrongs of this - but if the SEIU are in the right then they are ill served by the support of anonymous bloggers who act as cheerleaders for the UNISON leadership who have comprehensively failed to mobilise the strength of our 1.3 million members.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The POA and the anti-union laws
As a good delegate who can observe collective responsibility when it is appopriate (as opposed to other occasions - of which more later) I voted in line with UNISON policy at the TUC - which meant my hand was one of the forest of hands that voted down Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association.
The POA may be unlikely poster boys (and girls) for the left but the combined effect of prison privatisation (a Tory policy pursued with relish by the Tories of New Labour); a de facto ban on effective industrial action and a principled leadership committed to trade unionism and equality have combined to produce - in the POA - a strong and leftwing trade union.
Motion 7 - which called for (unlawful) strike action to break the anti-union laws - had sound intentions but invited tactical criticism, expressed by a PCS delegate who argued that members would not be mobilised to oppose the anti-union laws themselves, but would come to see the necessity for unlawful action if the laws were used unjustly to block action on issues of pressing concern to the membership (such as attacks on jobs or pensions).
I understand that the POA were inspired to put Motion 7 before Congress by what they heard from the Justice Secretary when he spoke to them. (Certainly the Government's treatment of the POA has very little to do with justice!)
One of the most lamentable failures of the New Labour period which is now coming to its miserable end has been the failure of the trade unions to reverse the anti-union laws introduced under Thatcher and Major. Under a future Tory Government we can now expect further restrictions on our rights - at the same time as a major onslaught upon jobs, pensions and public services.
In a couple of years time many UNISON members may be confronting major challenges with restrictions on our right to take action similar to those which now face the POA.
If we won't then confront the anti-union laws, even at the risk of every asset of our Union, what will we do to fight for our rights?
The POA may be unlikely poster boys (and girls) for the left but the combined effect of prison privatisation (a Tory policy pursued with relish by the Tories of New Labour); a de facto ban on effective industrial action and a principled leadership committed to trade unionism and equality have combined to produce - in the POA - a strong and leftwing trade union.
Motion 7 - which called for (unlawful) strike action to break the anti-union laws - had sound intentions but invited tactical criticism, expressed by a PCS delegate who argued that members would not be mobilised to oppose the anti-union laws themselves, but would come to see the necessity for unlawful action if the laws were used unjustly to block action on issues of pressing concern to the membership (such as attacks on jobs or pensions).
I understand that the POA were inspired to put Motion 7 before Congress by what they heard from the Justice Secretary when he spoke to them. (Certainly the Government's treatment of the POA has very little to do with justice!)
One of the most lamentable failures of the New Labour period which is now coming to its miserable end has been the failure of the trade unions to reverse the anti-union laws introduced under Thatcher and Major. Under a future Tory Government we can now expect further restrictions on our rights - at the same time as a major onslaught upon jobs, pensions and public services.
In a couple of years time many UNISON members may be confronting major challenges with restrictions on our right to take action similar to those which now face the POA.
If we won't then confront the anti-union laws, even at the risk of every asset of our Union, what will we do to fight for our rights?
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Million Voices for Change - a million signatures to show we are serious
The TUC voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Peoples' Charter last Thursday.
This was a result for all those of us who want the union movement to break out of the political impotence and irrelevance which our leaders have all but celebrated for the past decade.
It was also to the credit of the politically astute souls in the RMT who accepted an amendment from UNITE which may have been intended as a wrecking amendment but which in fact strengthened and focused the position of support for the Charter, leaving in the commitment to work for a million signatures on the charter whilst also pressing for action in the Labour Party (about which the RMT had been uncharacteristically reticent).
Once leftwingers in UNITE had corrected a wobble about whether or not to withdraw the amendment (which had helped to ensure - for example - UNISON's support for the motion) the eventual outcome (support from the General Council - albeit with a a reservation - and then Congress) was predetermined.
UNISON activists can now correct any foolish perception upon the part of cynical souls that our "Million Voices for Change" campaign was ever intended as an establishment spoiler for the Charter (perish the thought!) Instead what we can now do is use the campaigning materials for the Million Voices campaign at branch level alongside the Charter itself.
After all, some of us on the political left are used to the criticism that we espouse causes on behalf of our members without their support - UNISON can now protect ourselves from any such criticism by integrating our Million Voices campaign with support for the Charter.
If we have a million voices for change - and I believe we do - then we can get a million signatures on the Charter which calls for that change. Mass support for the Charter will enable us to put pressure on politicians to join us in expressing that support if they want our votes.
From my perspective (as a Labour Party member who is not afraid to own up to that political affiliation when seeking office in our trade union, unlike some) I think that this can only be helpful in firming up the position of the better Labour candidates (of whom there are some) and helping us to campaign to protect as many as possible of the few socialist Parliamentarians we currently have to speak up for our class in the Palace of Westminster.
This was a result for all those of us who want the union movement to break out of the political impotence and irrelevance which our leaders have all but celebrated for the past decade.
It was also to the credit of the politically astute souls in the RMT who accepted an amendment from UNITE which may have been intended as a wrecking amendment but which in fact strengthened and focused the position of support for the Charter, leaving in the commitment to work for a million signatures on the charter whilst also pressing for action in the Labour Party (about which the RMT had been uncharacteristically reticent).
Once leftwingers in UNITE had corrected a wobble about whether or not to withdraw the amendment (which had helped to ensure - for example - UNISON's support for the motion) the eventual outcome (support from the General Council - albeit with a a reservation - and then Congress) was predetermined.
UNISON activists can now correct any foolish perception upon the part of cynical souls that our "Million Voices for Change" campaign was ever intended as an establishment spoiler for the Charter (perish the thought!) Instead what we can now do is use the campaigning materials for the Million Voices campaign at branch level alongside the Charter itself.
After all, some of us on the political left are used to the criticism that we espouse causes on behalf of our members without their support - UNISON can now protect ourselves from any such criticism by integrating our Million Voices campaign with support for the Charter.
If we have a million voices for change - and I believe we do - then we can get a million signatures on the Charter which calls for that change. Mass support for the Charter will enable us to put pressure on politicians to join us in expressing that support if they want our votes.
From my perspective (as a Labour Party member who is not afraid to own up to that political affiliation when seeking office in our trade union, unlike some) I think that this can only be helpful in firming up the position of the better Labour candidates (of whom there are some) and helping us to campaign to protect as many as possible of the few socialist Parliamentarians we currently have to speak up for our class in the Palace of Westminster.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Unity is strength - but how do we get there?
Yesterday I went to the fringe meeting of the Trade Union Coordinating Group, launched at last year's TUC by four unions, and now co-ordinating the political work of eight unions.
The TUCG unions (PCS, the FBU, RMT, the NUJ, POA, BFAWU, NAPO and URTU) are getting beyond the splendid isolation often preferred by the largest unions and supporting one another in an assertive and combative way.
(In fact they are doing what the TUC should do but does not).
Within the biggest unions, which will not yet sign up to such an initiative, we need to build unity at a rank and file level - and the most important use of being at the TUC for a socialist is to renew contact with comrades in other unions, which will be particularly important given the scale of the coming onslaught upon our members.
Just as Gordon Brown's dreary speech offered far too little far too late to working people, so it is hard to believe in the fine content of some of the Composite Motions agreed this week.
Mark Serwotka pointed out yesterday that whereas when the unions stood together over pensions a few years ago we saw a more positive outcome than we would have - last year's Congress decision to take united action over pay was not implemented and we have ended up with lousy pay settlements as a result.
The unity we need is not so much at Congress (though that is good) but on the streets and picket lines.
The TUCG unions (PCS, the FBU, RMT, the NUJ, POA, BFAWU, NAPO and URTU) are getting beyond the splendid isolation often preferred by the largest unions and supporting one another in an assertive and combative way.
(In fact they are doing what the TUC should do but does not).
Within the biggest unions, which will not yet sign up to such an initiative, we need to build unity at a rank and file level - and the most important use of being at the TUC for a socialist is to renew contact with comrades in other unions, which will be particularly important given the scale of the coming onslaught upon our members.
Just as Gordon Brown's dreary speech offered far too little far too late to working people, so it is hard to believe in the fine content of some of the Composite Motions agreed this week.
Mark Serwotka pointed out yesterday that whereas when the unions stood together over pensions a few years ago we saw a more positive outcome than we would have - last year's Congress decision to take united action over pay was not implemented and we have ended up with lousy pay settlements as a result.
The unity we need is not so much at Congress (though that is good) but on the streets and picket lines.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Sound of Silence
News reaches your blogger on the floor of Congress that the General Council voted by a narrow majority not to make a statement about Palestine (a draft of which had been circulated yesterday).
The draft GC statement represented a moderating of the positive position of the FBU motion 76 which reflects the policy of UNISON Conference (and calls for a boycott of Israeli goods and disinvestment from companies associated with the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist state).
On this occasion the General Council were right to restrain themselves from making a statement (which would - constitutionally - have taken precedence over the motion if agreed). This important debate (scheduled for the end of tomorrow afternoon) will now revolve around a GMB amendment to the FBU motion which seeks to water down our policy of support for the Palestinian people.
UNISON (I am pleased to say) is opposing the GMB and supporting the FBU on this question, as are the General Council.
Update - I have made an important amendment above on receipt of additional information (and also understand that there was a full and frank exchange of views between the General Secretary of the TUC (who may have been disappointed by the General Council decision) and a Mr Simpson from UNITE (putting in a rare appearance at the General Council) who expressed himself with characteristic courtesy and good humour.
The draft GC statement represented a moderating of the positive position of the FBU motion 76 which reflects the policy of UNISON Conference (and calls for a boycott of Israeli goods and disinvestment from companies associated with the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist state).
On this occasion the General Council were right to restrain themselves from making a statement (which would - constitutionally - have taken precedence over the motion if agreed). This important debate (scheduled for the end of tomorrow afternoon) will now revolve around a GMB amendment to the FBU motion which seeks to water down our policy of support for the Palestinian people.
UNISON (I am pleased to say) is opposing the GMB and supporting the FBU on this question, as are the General Council.
Update - I have made an important amendment above on receipt of additional information (and also understand that there was a full and frank exchange of views between the General Secretary of the TUC (who may have been disappointed by the General Council decision) and a Mr Simpson from UNITE (putting in a rare appearance at the General Council) who expressed himself with characteristic courtesy and good humour.
Has Politics Failed?
I won't try to blog a blow by blow account of the official business of Congress, because you can see it on the telly (and follow debate elsewhere online) - but I will report from the more interesting debates that take place on the fringe.
Yesterday I went to the packed fringe meeting organised by the Institute of Employment Rights on the theme "Politics has failed - so how should unions respond?"
This debate - around the crisis of political representation of the working class - is now unavoidable (although plenty of people continue to try to avoid it - the no-longer-aptly-named "Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions" organised a fringe meeting calling for support for the Labour Party because of all the good things the Government has done!)
At the IER meeting speakers made generally thoughtful and intelligent contributions. Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association was angry and moving as ever (and all but announced his recent decision to leave the Labour Party for the Socialist Party). Mark Serwotka spoke convincingly about the likelihood that none of the main political parties will adopt any significant part of the programme adopted by our movement.
Len McCluskey was a rarity on the platform for arguing (as I would) that there is still a fight to be had in the Labour Party. John Hendy referred back to TUC policy in the run up to the 1906 election - when the TUC asked candidates in the election if they backed the policies of the trade unions. Those who say that the TUC could not take such action for some constitutional reason should have been there to here this persuasive contribution - the Peoples Charter (which UNISON will be supporting on Thursday) would provide precisely the basis upon which such questions could be put to candidates in the 2010 election, just as we did 104 years ago.
The trade union movement has the opportunity, in rebuilding our strength and political independence to assert real influence.
As a safety practitioner I would have to advise readers not to hold their breath however.
Yesterday I went to the packed fringe meeting organised by the Institute of Employment Rights on the theme "Politics has failed - so how should unions respond?"
This debate - around the crisis of political representation of the working class - is now unavoidable (although plenty of people continue to try to avoid it - the no-longer-aptly-named "Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions" organised a fringe meeting calling for support for the Labour Party because of all the good things the Government has done!)
At the IER meeting speakers made generally thoughtful and intelligent contributions. Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association was angry and moving as ever (and all but announced his recent decision to leave the Labour Party for the Socialist Party). Mark Serwotka spoke convincingly about the likelihood that none of the main political parties will adopt any significant part of the programme adopted by our movement.
Len McCluskey was a rarity on the platform for arguing (as I would) that there is still a fight to be had in the Labour Party. John Hendy referred back to TUC policy in the run up to the 1906 election - when the TUC asked candidates in the election if they backed the policies of the trade unions. Those who say that the TUC could not take such action for some constitutional reason should have been there to here this persuasive contribution - the Peoples Charter (which UNISON will be supporting on Thursday) would provide precisely the basis upon which such questions could be put to candidates in the 2010 election, just as we did 104 years ago.
The trade union movement has the opportunity, in rebuilding our strength and political independence to assert real influence.
As a safety practitioner I would have to advise readers not to hold their breath however.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Liverpool Trades Council demonstration
After yesterday's delegation meeting a smattering of UNISON delegates joined a modest but positive march and rally organised by Liverpool Trades Council, addressed by a seemingly endless list of speakers promoting a variety of worthy causes. I don't have the time (or laptop battery life) to do justice to the range of contributions in this post.
Bob Crow, welcoming the rally on behalf of the RMT set the tone of his interventions for the coming week, pointing out that if the TUC fails to stand up for our members we will continue to lose power and influence (or as he put it with characteristic understatement - next year we could meet in a telephone box). Although the rally was not large it may well be useful to establish a Trades Council demonstration at the start of Congress for the future?
It was alarming that a handful of fascists had the confidence to stand a little way from the rally (the other side of a few police officers). The chilling arrogance of the Nazis is a reminder of the urgency of our campaigning against the far right - I'll blog a report later from the Unite Against Fascism fringe meeting.
Bob Crow, welcoming the rally on behalf of the RMT set the tone of his interventions for the coming week, pointing out that if the TUC fails to stand up for our members we will continue to lose power and influence (or as he put it with characteristic understatement - next year we could meet in a telephone box). Although the rally was not large it may well be useful to establish a Trades Council demonstration at the start of Congress for the future?
It was alarming that a handful of fascists had the confidence to stand a little way from the rally (the other side of a few police officers). The chilling arrogance of the Nazis is a reminder of the urgency of our campaigning against the far right - I'll blog a report later from the Unite Against Fascism fringe meeting.
TUC UNISON delegation meeting
Yesterday morning UNISON's delegation spent a couple of happy hours agreeing our policy on the motions coming up at Congress, which starts in a few minutes.
As ever most motions are supported - and the delegation endorsed all the recommendations of Saturday's Policy Committee meeting. I was in a (sometimes small) minority opposing those recommendations on three motions.
These were Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association which makes an audacious call for strike action against the anti-union laws, Motion 56 from the National Union of Teachers (which we are opposing largely I think because it calls for a national demonstration against unemployment and spending cuts ahead of the General Election) and Motion 84 from the Communication Workers Union on political representation.
That last debate was most interesting for what was not said. I argued that the crisis of representation of working people argued in favour of the CWU proposal for a trade union Conference to discuss political representation and for this to be organised across all trade unions. Although the majority were not swayed by this argument, no one contributed to claim that UNISON Labour Link are doing a grand job (as would have been said even a couple of years ago).
The question of political representation for our movement is posed very starkly now. The leadership of the big unions may duck the debate for one last year ahead of a General Election but we cannot go on avoiding the issue for ever.
As ever most motions are supported - and the delegation endorsed all the recommendations of Saturday's Policy Committee meeting. I was in a (sometimes small) minority opposing those recommendations on three motions.
These were Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association which makes an audacious call for strike action against the anti-union laws, Motion 56 from the National Union of Teachers (which we are opposing largely I think because it calls for a national demonstration against unemployment and spending cuts ahead of the General Election) and Motion 84 from the Communication Workers Union on political representation.
That last debate was most interesting for what was not said. I argued that the crisis of representation of working people argued in favour of the CWU proposal for a trade union Conference to discuss political representation and for this to be organised across all trade unions. Although the majority were not swayed by this argument, no one contributed to claim that UNISON Labour Link are doing a grand job (as would have been said even a couple of years ago).
The question of political representation for our movement is posed very starkly now. The leadership of the big unions may duck the debate for one last year ahead of a General Election but we cannot go on avoiding the issue for ever.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
TUC online
For those of you online but not at Congress you can now have your say at the new Congress Voices site which is well worth a visit.
Another recent addition to the blogosphere is UNISON Active which has impressive energy (and a quite witty preview of the TUC) but is a little bit anonymous for my tastes (I always worry when I read that something in UNISON is from a "progressive left" perspective as that is sometimes a coded reference to the sharpening of ice-picks, which is all just so last century!)
Come on UNISON activists - put your names to your blog posts and let's have open debate and discussion around the many important topics you are rightly highlighting :-)
Another recent addition to the blogosphere is UNISON Active which has impressive energy (and a quite witty preview of the TUC) but is a little bit anonymous for my tastes (I always worry when I read that something in UNISON is from a "progressive left" perspective as that is sometimes a coded reference to the sharpening of ice-picks, which is all just so last century!)
Come on UNISON activists - put your names to your blog posts and let's have open debate and discussion around the many important topics you are rightly highlighting :-)
TUC Composites
The Composites booklet for this week's TUC is now available.
I am pleased to see that UNISON is part of Composite 10 on pensions which commits the TUC to support defined benefit pension schemes across the public and private sectors with a “properly resourced and coordinated campaign”. Of course we may agree this and see little happen in reality – but agreeing this at least opens up the possibility of some effective action in line with UNISON Conference policy.
I am also pleased to see that we are now in Composite 13, seconding UCATT and supporting – again in line with our Conference policy – the view that local authorities should be the “primary deliverers of social housing”.
There is one area where a composite has yet to be agreed, around motions 48 to 51 on public services and public spending (including one UNISON motion and one of the motions on which UNISON's NEC policy Committee has not yet made a recommendation.
The timetable for Congress has also been published in the Congress Guide. Monday morning we debate support for the NHS and opposition to the BNP (with a demonstration of that opposition at the lunch break). Monday afternoon we consider pensions, public services, disability discrimination and health and safety.
Tuesday sees debate on learning and skills, organsing and more on public services and health and safety (including the motion on high heels which provoked a silly season Tory story. In the afternoon Congress will debate the financial system, steel, housing and the media.
Wednesday morning we will discuss the economy, transport and the Environment before an address from Ed Miliband, whilst the afternoon kicks off with Kate Allen from Amnesty followed by debates on vulnerable workers and the minimum wage, featuring a video link to the AFL-CIO Congress and the address of President Obama.
Thursday we traditionally mop up the remaining business but this year will see a couple of interesting debates first thing. The first will be on the PCS amendment to Motion 83 from the FDA which amendment advocates electoral reform. The second will be on the CWU motion (84) calling for a trade union Conference to consider political representation.
I'll blog as and when about what goes on during the week.
I am pleased to see that UNISON is part of Composite 10 on pensions which commits the TUC to support defined benefit pension schemes across the public and private sectors with a “properly resourced and coordinated campaign”. Of course we may agree this and see little happen in reality – but agreeing this at least opens up the possibility of some effective action in line with UNISON Conference policy.
I am also pleased to see that we are now in Composite 13, seconding UCATT and supporting – again in line with our Conference policy – the view that local authorities should be the “primary deliverers of social housing”.
There is one area where a composite has yet to be agreed, around motions 48 to 51 on public services and public spending (including one UNISON motion and one of the motions on which UNISON's NEC policy Committee has not yet made a recommendation.
The timetable for Congress has also been published in the Congress Guide. Monday morning we debate support for the NHS and opposition to the BNP (with a demonstration of that opposition at the lunch break). Monday afternoon we consider pensions, public services, disability discrimination and health and safety.
Tuesday sees debate on learning and skills, organsing and more on public services and health and safety (including the motion on high heels which provoked a silly season Tory story. In the afternoon Congress will debate the financial system, steel, housing and the media.
Wednesday morning we will discuss the economy, transport and the Environment before an address from Ed Miliband, whilst the afternoon kicks off with Kate Allen from Amnesty followed by debates on vulnerable workers and the minimum wage, featuring a video link to the AFL-CIO Congress and the address of President Obama.
Thursday we traditionally mop up the remaining business but this year will see a couple of interesting debates first thing. The first will be on the PCS amendment to Motion 83 from the FDA which amendment advocates electoral reform. The second will be on the CWU motion (84) calling for a trade union Conference to consider political representation.
I'll blog as and when about what goes on during the week.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Hello Liverpool
I arrive today in Liverpool ahead of the TUC Congress. Tomorrow morning is the second (and quite probably final) meeting of this year's UNISON TUC delegation and we will be agreeing our policy positions on the various motions and amendments (and Composites) on the agenda.
As things stand, of the 85 motions on the Congress agenda, aside from the three motions which we are amending and about which I have blogged before, the position being recommended to the delegation by the Policy Committee of the NEC is to support, 71, opposed 1 and defer making a decision about the other 10 (meaning that there is no recommendation from the Policy Committee on those 10 – yet).
The one motion which we are being recommended to oppose at this stage is Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association (POA) which calls upon the TUC to coordinate strike action which would breach the anti-union laws in order to reclaim the right to take strike action which the Tory Government took away and New Labour has refused to restore.
I can imagine the arguments against this proposition, which is certainly ambitious. However the POA, having been on the receiving end of outrageous legal attacks by this disgrace of a Government, are right to say that the more limited campaigning undertaken to date has failed to achieve any significant reduction in the anti-democratic restrictions on the rights of working people which hobble our movement.
Whilst the big unions will not be persuaded to take the risks which the POA have had no choice but to take, Motion 7 asks a question of the leaders of our movement, about what it is we have got for our support of New Labour, which needs now to be asked (and to which an answer is certainly outstanding).
The motion from the CWU (Number 84) which asks the same question is one of those upon which the NEC Policy Committee did not make a recommendation in August. The CWU rightly point out that trade unionists are not supporting New Labour and calls upon the TUC to organise a Conference at which the trade unions can consider how to achieve political representation for our members. If UNISON's TUC delegation supports the speech given by our General Secretary to our National Delegate Conference in June then we will follow through and vote for this motion.
The other nine motions on which no recommendation has yet been made are as follows;
Motion 10 on Fighting Fascism from PCS (I am at a loss – as I write – to see why we are not simply being recommended to support this. It may be that there are reservations about its call for a national demonstration to be called by the TUC).
Motion 32 on the Peoples' Charter from the RMT. Though if I am well informed in hearing that the RMT will support the UNITE amendment to their motion (which supports “the principles of” the Charter and commits to campaigning for progressive policies in the Labour Party) then I cannot believe we will oppose this motion as amended.
Motion 47 from BALPA opposing a tax on air travel (the Green in me hopes we oppose this!)
Motion 49 from PCS on Defending Public Services (only a cynic would think that we have not come out in support of this in order to strengthen our hand in some argument about a Composite, since I cannot see a word in the motion itself which is not in line with UNISON policy.
Motion 56 from the NUT on Education and the Economic Crisis (which is probably giving the General Council the collywobbles with its call for a national demonstration ahead of the General Election).
Motion 70 on copyright piracy from BECTU (which calls for internet service providers to clamp down on illegal downloading). I can see both sides of this argument and will be interested to hear the views of other delegates.
Motion 73 from Equity on “Workers in Adult Entertainment” (which touches on the ongoing debate about whether workers in “adult” entertainment (and/or the sex industry) need union organisation or exit strategies). Again I can see both sides of this argument, but come down generally on the side or organising workers rather than putting moral judgements about their work ahead of their need for organisation. This motion opposes extending the category of “sex encounter establishments” so that local authorities can limit the number of lap dancing clubs in their area – and on this point I do think that democratically elected local politicians should have some such authority.
Motion 82 from the Trades Councils calling for the defence of TUC Unemployed Workers Centres (about which any concerns must be ones about the detail and volume of work being required of the General Council, who are presumably encouraging the larger affiliates not to commit support until they have been able to come to some understanding with the movers?)
Motion 85 from the RMT (which calls for the TUC Young Members Conference to have the right to submit a motion to Congress). There is no coherent argument against this reasonable proposal, and if incoherent arguments are advance I shall let you know on this blog.
Other than these motions above we are to be recommended to support all the other motions on the agenda. The motions we are supporting are in many cases more important than those discussed above (with the exception perhaps of Motion 84!) but since tomorrow's delegation meeting is likely to focus on the motions where no recommendation has yet been made I thought I would comment on those.
As things stand, of the 85 motions on the Congress agenda, aside from the three motions which we are amending and about which I have blogged before, the position being recommended to the delegation by the Policy Committee of the NEC is to support, 71, opposed 1 and defer making a decision about the other 10 (meaning that there is no recommendation from the Policy Committee on those 10 – yet).
The one motion which we are being recommended to oppose at this stage is Motion 7 from the Prison Officers Association (POA) which calls upon the TUC to coordinate strike action which would breach the anti-union laws in order to reclaim the right to take strike action which the Tory Government took away and New Labour has refused to restore.
I can imagine the arguments against this proposition, which is certainly ambitious. However the POA, having been on the receiving end of outrageous legal attacks by this disgrace of a Government, are right to say that the more limited campaigning undertaken to date has failed to achieve any significant reduction in the anti-democratic restrictions on the rights of working people which hobble our movement.
Whilst the big unions will not be persuaded to take the risks which the POA have had no choice but to take, Motion 7 asks a question of the leaders of our movement, about what it is we have got for our support of New Labour, which needs now to be asked (and to which an answer is certainly outstanding).
The motion from the CWU (Number 84) which asks the same question is one of those upon which the NEC Policy Committee did not make a recommendation in August. The CWU rightly point out that trade unionists are not supporting New Labour and calls upon the TUC to organise a Conference at which the trade unions can consider how to achieve political representation for our members. If UNISON's TUC delegation supports the speech given by our General Secretary to our National Delegate Conference in June then we will follow through and vote for this motion.
The other nine motions on which no recommendation has yet been made are as follows;
Motion 10 on Fighting Fascism from PCS (I am at a loss – as I write – to see why we are not simply being recommended to support this. It may be that there are reservations about its call for a national demonstration to be called by the TUC).
Motion 32 on the Peoples' Charter from the RMT. Though if I am well informed in hearing that the RMT will support the UNITE amendment to their motion (which supports “the principles of” the Charter and commits to campaigning for progressive policies in the Labour Party) then I cannot believe we will oppose this motion as amended.
Motion 47 from BALPA opposing a tax on air travel (the Green in me hopes we oppose this!)
Motion 49 from PCS on Defending Public Services (only a cynic would think that we have not come out in support of this in order to strengthen our hand in some argument about a Composite, since I cannot see a word in the motion itself which is not in line with UNISON policy.
Motion 56 from the NUT on Education and the Economic Crisis (which is probably giving the General Council the collywobbles with its call for a national demonstration ahead of the General Election).
Motion 70 on copyright piracy from BECTU (which calls for internet service providers to clamp down on illegal downloading). I can see both sides of this argument and will be interested to hear the views of other delegates.
Motion 73 from Equity on “Workers in Adult Entertainment” (which touches on the ongoing debate about whether workers in “adult” entertainment (and/or the sex industry) need union organisation or exit strategies). Again I can see both sides of this argument, but come down generally on the side or organising workers rather than putting moral judgements about their work ahead of their need for organisation. This motion opposes extending the category of “sex encounter establishments” so that local authorities can limit the number of lap dancing clubs in their area – and on this point I do think that democratically elected local politicians should have some such authority.
Motion 82 from the Trades Councils calling for the defence of TUC Unemployed Workers Centres (about which any concerns must be ones about the detail and volume of work being required of the General Council, who are presumably encouraging the larger affiliates not to commit support until they have been able to come to some understanding with the movers?)
Motion 85 from the RMT (which calls for the TUC Young Members Conference to have the right to submit a motion to Congress). There is no coherent argument against this reasonable proposal, and if incoherent arguments are advance I shall let you know on this blog.
Other than these motions above we are to be recommended to support all the other motions on the agenda. The motions we are supporting are in many cases more important than those discussed above (with the exception perhaps of Motion 84!) but since tomorrow's delegation meeting is likely to focus on the motions where no recommendation has yet been made I thought I would comment on those.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
UNISON's amendments to the TUC
The Final Agenda for the TUC Congress next week is online (and has finally arrived in the post!)
I’ll blog later about UNISON’s position on the various motions on the agenda but will now comment on our amendments.
UNISON has an amendment to UNITE’s motion on the Posted Workers Directive (Motion 1) which could be a very high profile debate at Congress in view of the recent ballot results and the prospect of further strike action in the refineries and power stations.
In Section 3 on Economic and Industrial Affairs, is UNISON’s amendment to the GMB motion on “Quality Pensions for All” (Motion 23), which enables our TUC delegation to come close to implementing the clear 2009 Conference decision that we should have put this issue on the agenda as a motion ourselves (about which I have whinged before). If there’s a composite with our name on then we will in the end almost have complied with our own policy.
UNISON also has an amendment in to a motion from UCATT on Housing (Motion 37) which makes a couple of positive additions but then deletes a clause which calls on the General Council to campaign for “to ensure local authorities are the primary deliverers of social housing” with a call for the campaign to be “for an expanded programme of affordable social housing based on a level playing field between local authorities, housing associations and ALMOs.'
Since the UNISON TUC delegation no longer has a meeting to agree amendments to TUC motions, this amendment has been submitted on UNISON’s behalf by the Policy Committee of the NEC, but I’m not sure my colleagues on the Policy Committee have got it quite right.
UNISON’s policy on Housing states that “council housing should be a central component” in addressing housing need and “welcomes the government's more positive message on the key role of council housing over the last year but believes it is essential that the issue be given the highest possible priority to ensure that all councils are required to take full advantage of public money available to invest in council housing.” UNISON Conference 2009 also called for “a significantly expanded role for local authorities as providers of decent homes” and reiterated support for the Fourth Option (which is increasingly relevant following today’s launch at the DCH National Meeting of the latest report from the Council Housing group of MPs).
This built on the policy of our Local Government Conference in 2008 which was to “campaign for the widest possible measures that enable local authorities to build new council homes where they would be contributing to meeting housing need in their locality.” Our policy of support for a “level playing field” between different housing providers is not based upon equal support for different providers, but upon UNISON’s opposition to the bias against Council housing built into Government policy.
National Delegate Conference put it well in 2006; “Conference reaffirms its opposition to any of the forms of privatisation of council housing whether through stock transfer, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) or Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and that council housing has been repeatedly shown to be cheaper to build and has lower maintenance costs than all the other options and would make a major contribution to meeting the housing needs of today as well as improving health and well being in the longer term”.
Since the word limit on TUC amendments applies equally to additional or replacement text I don’t quite see why we couldn’t simply have added our sensible “level playing field” demand to UCATT’s correct proposition that, ideally, local authorities should be the primary providers.
Having to deal on an almost daily basis with the failure of ALMOs as a policy initiative, and having seen how third sector providers of social housing can treat their staff, I think UCATT are right – and that what they say is consistent with UNISON policy – when they express the aspiration that local authorities (democratically accountable to local communities) should be the primary providers of social housing.
UNISON has to be committed to representing all our housing members regardless of their employer – but that doesn’t mean that we should agree, as a matter of policy, that we are neutral as between different forms of social housing provision (after all, we manage to represent workers in private contractors whilst continuing to oppose privatisation).
I hope that compositing enables the addition of UNISON’s “level playing field” demand without the deletion of UCATT’s support for council housing.
I’ll blog later about UNISON’s position on the various motions on the agenda but will now comment on our amendments.
UNISON has an amendment to UNITE’s motion on the Posted Workers Directive (Motion 1) which could be a very high profile debate at Congress in view of the recent ballot results and the prospect of further strike action in the refineries and power stations.
In Section 3 on Economic and Industrial Affairs, is UNISON’s amendment to the GMB motion on “Quality Pensions for All” (Motion 23), which enables our TUC delegation to come close to implementing the clear 2009 Conference decision that we should have put this issue on the agenda as a motion ourselves (about which I have whinged before). If there’s a composite with our name on then we will in the end almost have complied with our own policy.
UNISON also has an amendment in to a motion from UCATT on Housing (Motion 37) which makes a couple of positive additions but then deletes a clause which calls on the General Council to campaign for “to ensure local authorities are the primary deliverers of social housing” with a call for the campaign to be “for an expanded programme of affordable social housing based on a level playing field between local authorities, housing associations and ALMOs.'
Since the UNISON TUC delegation no longer has a meeting to agree amendments to TUC motions, this amendment has been submitted on UNISON’s behalf by the Policy Committee of the NEC, but I’m not sure my colleagues on the Policy Committee have got it quite right.
UNISON’s policy on Housing states that “council housing should be a central component” in addressing housing need and “welcomes the government's more positive message on the key role of council housing over the last year but believes it is essential that the issue be given the highest possible priority to ensure that all councils are required to take full advantage of public money available to invest in council housing.” UNISON Conference 2009 also called for “a significantly expanded role for local authorities as providers of decent homes” and reiterated support for the Fourth Option (which is increasingly relevant following today’s launch at the DCH National Meeting of the latest report from the Council Housing group of MPs).
This built on the policy of our Local Government Conference in 2008 which was to “campaign for the widest possible measures that enable local authorities to build new council homes where they would be contributing to meeting housing need in their locality.” Our policy of support for a “level playing field” between different housing providers is not based upon equal support for different providers, but upon UNISON’s opposition to the bias against Council housing built into Government policy.
National Delegate Conference put it well in 2006; “Conference reaffirms its opposition to any of the forms of privatisation of council housing whether through stock transfer, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) or Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and that council housing has been repeatedly shown to be cheaper to build and has lower maintenance costs than all the other options and would make a major contribution to meeting the housing needs of today as well as improving health and well being in the longer term”.
Since the word limit on TUC amendments applies equally to additional or replacement text I don’t quite see why we couldn’t simply have added our sensible “level playing field” demand to UCATT’s correct proposition that, ideally, local authorities should be the primary providers.
Having to deal on an almost daily basis with the failure of ALMOs as a policy initiative, and having seen how third sector providers of social housing can treat their staff, I think UCATT are right – and that what they say is consistent with UNISON policy – when they express the aspiration that local authorities (democratically accountable to local communities) should be the primary providers of social housing.
UNISON has to be committed to representing all our housing members regardless of their employer – but that doesn’t mean that we should agree, as a matter of policy, that we are neutral as between different forms of social housing provision (after all, we manage to represent workers in private contractors whilst continuing to oppose privatisation).
I hope that compositing enables the addition of UNISON’s “level playing field” demand without the deletion of UCATT’s support for council housing.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Late night holiday reading
While others relax on holiday with trashy novels I was continuing my bedtime reading of the TUC Preliminary Agenda and was driven to online comment by Motion P84 from the Communication Workers Union;
“Political representation of members
Congress recognises the lack of adequate representation at political level for the members of affiliated unions. Congess notes that New Labour, as currently constituted, is now failing to attract the support of our members and that its vote at the 2009 European Election reached an historic low. The present Government’s policy of continuing privatisation, cuts in Government spending and failure to remove the anti-trade union laws is unlikely to change this in the near future.
Congress therefore calls on the General Council to convene, at the earliest opportunity, a conference of all affiliated unions to consider how to achieve effective political representation for our members.”
In the light of the decision of PCS Conference to consult their members on the standing of candidates in elections – and the speech of our own General Secretary at UNISON Conference (which let the genie out of the bottle) this motion could come to have considerable significance.
Even last year those who could see the need for a new approach to political campaigning by the trade unions could not win the support of the leadership of the largest unions. Now the CWU will put the other affiliated unions on the spot.
The genie Dave Prentis let out of the bottle in June may be about to grant some wishes…
“Political representation of members
Congress recognises the lack of adequate representation at political level for the members of affiliated unions. Congess notes that New Labour, as currently constituted, is now failing to attract the support of our members and that its vote at the 2009 European Election reached an historic low. The present Government’s policy of continuing privatisation, cuts in Government spending and failure to remove the anti-trade union laws is unlikely to change this in the near future.
Congress therefore calls on the General Council to convene, at the earliest opportunity, a conference of all affiliated unions to consider how to achieve effective political representation for our members.”
In the light of the decision of PCS Conference to consult their members on the standing of candidates in elections – and the speech of our own General Secretary at UNISON Conference (which let the genie out of the bottle) this motion could come to have considerable significance.
Even last year those who could see the need for a new approach to political campaigning by the trade unions could not win the support of the leadership of the largest unions. Now the CWU will put the other affiliated unions on the spot.
The genie Dave Prentis let out of the bottle in June may be about to grant some wishes…
Holiday reading...
I’m still on holiday, but was pleased to see a copy of the Preliminary Agenda for this year's Trades Union Congress nonetheless. It doesn’t seem to have made it on to the TUC website yet.
Having gone on at some length about my concern that UNISON’s TUC delegation had failed to follow UNISON Conference policy to submit a motion calling for a defence of pension schemes across the public and private sectors. I was pleased to see Motion P23 from the GMB – Quality Pensions For All, which reads as follows;
“Congress is appalled at attempts by politicians, the media, employers and the pensions industry to undermine workers’ savings.
Millions of people are reliant on public sector pensions for their retirement income and now live in fear of their savings being decimated by a Tory government. Congress recognises that public and private sector defined benefit schemes are both sustainable and necessary; and that the closure of public sector schemes threatens quality schemes in the private sector that are already scarce as a result of continual attacks on members’ deferred pay.
Congress calls on the General Council and Labour Party to:
i) mount a properly resourced, coordinated campaign to promote and defend good quality defined benefit pension schemes
ii) show public sector schemes as a model of good practice to be replicated by employers, not to be cut to the minimum provision possible
iii) publicly support the long-term sustainability of public services and public service pensions
iv) explain the contribution to the economy made by funded schemes which invest billions in UK businesses
v) highlight the savings to the taxpayer from occupational pension saving and the cost generated by inadequate provision and increased reliance on state benefits
vi) challenge the hypocrisy of the pensions industry and politicians seeking to force workers to work longer and save for their retirement but refusing to guarantee secure and reliable means of doing so
vii) take the necessary steps to ensure that all workers on public service contracts can participate in public sector pension schemes.”
This motion seems (at point (i)) already more or less to meet the requirements set by our UNISON Conference, that UNISON should “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.” Full marks to the GMB for putting this on the Congress Agenda.
And for those who think it’s ok that the UNISON TUC delegation ignored a Conference decision because “it would open the floodgates to Conference deciding our submissions to the TUC” I suggest a quick search of the Conference database online, which will show that only one other motion passed at this year’s Conference even hinted at a TUC motion (not that our motion P52 on defending the NHS quite does the specific thing that Conference Motion 45 was almost asking for in any case).
Perhaps we should invite the GMB to the UNISON social event at the TUC as a sort of thankyou for implementing our policies when we forget to do so ourselves?
Alternatively, since the UNISON delegate who danced with the GMB General Secretary at last year's Entertainment Unions' party may not be in Liverpool for a repeat performance, perhaps I should offer my services? (Alterting the breakaway online faction of my fan club to bring their cameras of course...)
Having gone on at some length about my concern that UNISON’s TUC delegation had failed to follow UNISON Conference policy to submit a motion calling for a defence of pension schemes across the public and private sectors. I was pleased to see Motion P23 from the GMB – Quality Pensions For All, which reads as follows;
“Congress is appalled at attempts by politicians, the media, employers and the pensions industry to undermine workers’ savings.
Millions of people are reliant on public sector pensions for their retirement income and now live in fear of their savings being decimated by a Tory government. Congress recognises that public and private sector defined benefit schemes are both sustainable and necessary; and that the closure of public sector schemes threatens quality schemes in the private sector that are already scarce as a result of continual attacks on members’ deferred pay.
Congress calls on the General Council and Labour Party to:
i) mount a properly resourced, coordinated campaign to promote and defend good quality defined benefit pension schemes
ii) show public sector schemes as a model of good practice to be replicated by employers, not to be cut to the minimum provision possible
iii) publicly support the long-term sustainability of public services and public service pensions
iv) explain the contribution to the economy made by funded schemes which invest billions in UK businesses
v) highlight the savings to the taxpayer from occupational pension saving and the cost generated by inadequate provision and increased reliance on state benefits
vi) challenge the hypocrisy of the pensions industry and politicians seeking to force workers to work longer and save for their retirement but refusing to guarantee secure and reliable means of doing so
vii) take the necessary steps to ensure that all workers on public service contracts can participate in public sector pension schemes.”
This motion seems (at point (i)) already more or less to meet the requirements set by our UNISON Conference, that UNISON should “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.” Full marks to the GMB for putting this on the Congress Agenda.
And for those who think it’s ok that the UNISON TUC delegation ignored a Conference decision because “it would open the floodgates to Conference deciding our submissions to the TUC” I suggest a quick search of the Conference database online, which will show that only one other motion passed at this year’s Conference even hinted at a TUC motion (not that our motion P52 on defending the NHS quite does the specific thing that Conference Motion 45 was almost asking for in any case).
Perhaps we should invite the GMB to the UNISON social event at the TUC as a sort of thankyou for implementing our policies when we forget to do so ourselves?
Alternatively, since the UNISON delegate who danced with the GMB General Secretary at last year's Entertainment Unions' party may not be in Liverpool for a repeat performance, perhaps I should offer my services? (Alterting the breakaway online faction of my fan club to bring their cameras of course...)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A pedant writes...
As I explained earlier, I think that UNISON will be making a mistake if we fail to implement clear Conference policy in respect of our submissions to the 2009 TUC Congress.
I have therefore written to the General Secretary as follows (and await comments along the lines of the anatomical references offered to me in respect of previous correspondence on another matter by a senior officer);
“National Delegate Conference, in passing Composite D took a clear decision that UNISON should "bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector."
Under Rule D.1.1 "The supreme government of the Union shall be vested in the National Delegate Conference." However, following Thursday's TUC delegation meeting the Union appears set to fail to implement this clear Conference decision.
The power to affiliate to the TUC and to determine arrangements for the delegation is given to the NEC by Rule D.2.9.7 and, in accordance with the preamble of Rule D.2.9 this is "part of" the general power of the NEC given by Rule D.2.1. This in turn is subject to the caveat that the NEC "shall not do anything that is inconsistent with... ...the policy of the Union as laid down at National Delegate Conference."
There is no Rule which permits the NEC to disregard, or to take into account only to a limited extent, Conference decisions about which the NEC itself had previously expressed some "qualification." The TUC Delegation does not itself have any particular standing under Rule and it must therefore operate in accordance with the Rule Book and hence the powers of the NEC(which is why the NEC was able, last year, to agree changes to the arrangements whereby previously individual members of the delegation had been able to table motions for discussion).
I am therefore writing to you, with copies to the President and to the Chair and Director of Policy, as a member of the NEC (sharing responsibility to see that the Union abides by Conference decisions) to request that you take urgent and appropriate action to avoid our acting in a manner which would be inconsistent with the policy of the Union laid down by National Delegate Conference 2009 when it agreed Composite D.
I look forward to hearing from you or from another appropriate colleague.”
Perhaps some other trade union will put a motion on the TUC agenda calling for a united fight to defend pensions across the private and public sectors, and UNISON can become part of a composite by way of an amendment, but strictly speaking we will have failed to implement Conference policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
I have therefore written to the General Secretary as follows (and await comments along the lines of the anatomical references offered to me in respect of previous correspondence on another matter by a senior officer);
“National Delegate Conference, in passing Composite D took a clear decision that UNISON should "bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector."
Under Rule D.1.1 "The supreme government of the Union shall be vested in the National Delegate Conference." However, following Thursday's TUC delegation meeting the Union appears set to fail to implement this clear Conference decision.
The power to affiliate to the TUC and to determine arrangements for the delegation is given to the NEC by Rule D.2.9.7 and, in accordance with the preamble of Rule D.2.9 this is "part of" the general power of the NEC given by Rule D.2.1. This in turn is subject to the caveat that the NEC "shall not do anything that is inconsistent with... ...the policy of the Union as laid down at National Delegate Conference."
There is no Rule which permits the NEC to disregard, or to take into account only to a limited extent, Conference decisions about which the NEC itself had previously expressed some "qualification." The TUC Delegation does not itself have any particular standing under Rule and it must therefore operate in accordance with the Rule Book and hence the powers of the NEC(which is why the NEC was able, last year, to agree changes to the arrangements whereby previously individual members of the delegation had been able to table motions for discussion).
I am therefore writing to you, with copies to the President and to the Chair and Director of Policy, as a member of the NEC (sharing responsibility to see that the Union abides by Conference decisions) to request that you take urgent and appropriate action to avoid our acting in a manner which would be inconsistent with the policy of the Union laid down by National Delegate Conference 2009 when it agreed Composite D.
I look forward to hearing from you or from another appropriate colleague.”
Perhaps some other trade union will put a motion on the TUC agenda calling for a united fight to defend pensions across the private and public sectors, and UNISON can become part of a composite by way of an amendment, but strictly speaking we will have failed to implement Conference policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
Friday, July 10, 2009
TUC delegation meeting fails to implement Conference policy
In the final thrilling installment from the drafting of my NEC report we reach yesterday afternoon's TUC delegation meeting...
The NEC meeting was followed by a meeting of the TUC delegation which I attended as an NEC member.
The delegation meeting had to choose three motions to submit to the TUC. In line with what was described as “the way we have always done things” (but was in fact in line with decisions taken only last year) the delegation meeting was presented with three draft motions from which to choose any three.
Formally these motions came from the Presidential Team (who had been elected the previous day) in consultation with the Chair of the Policy Committee (who had also been elected the previous day). In practice they had been drafted by officers.
Delegates queried the arrangements for submission of motions and were assured that all the “constituent bodies” of the TUC delegation (Regions, Service Groups, Self-Organised Groups etc.) had received adequate notice to submit either motions or ideas for motions and that where this had been done these had been taken into account.
The motions dealt with defending the NHS, fighting the BNP and public services.
The first motion “Defending Our NHS” calls for an end to privatisation in the Health Service and is likely to be the heart of one of the major composite motions at this year's Trades Union Congress.
The second motion “Fighting the BNP and Far Right” concentrates on a number of specific action points instructing the General Council on how to assist trade unions in responding to the rise of the far right. Delegates successfully proposed amendments to this motion from the floor in order to add a reference to “Unite Against Fascism” alongside “Searchlight.” Again I am sure that other trade unions will submit motions on this topic in the light of the results of the European elections and the confusion created by the new Employment Act and that this motion will become part of a Composite.
The third motion “Public Services and the Economy” deals with the need to protect public services in a recession. This gave rise to some debate as (of the three motions before the meeting) this was the only one in which any attempt could be made to implement a specific decision of our National Delegate Conference.
When this year's National Delegate Conference agreed Composite D “Defending UNISON Members' Pension Schemes” it took a specific decision as follows;
“UNISON to bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.”
I argued that the Union should comply with this Conference decision and that, if the only way to do this was to add this demand into the motion on public services and the economy then this is what should have been done (making compensatory cuts elsewhere in the motion to comply with the TUC's stringent 250 word limit).
Both before and during the meeting it was pointed out to me (in respect of Composite D at National Delegate Conference) that “this had been our qualification” when the policy of the NEC on this motion had been agreed as “support with qualifications”. This laughable argument (in response to which I confess to having laughed) reflects a misunderstanding which is widespread at Mabledon Place, where there appears to be a view that if Conference passes a policy which the NEC has “supported with qualifications” then the NEC is somehow entitled to implement the Conference decision only in part because of those “qualifications”. There is no basis in Rule for this view.
I believe that the failure of UNISON to implement the policy of our Conference to “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector” is both constitutionally and politically mistaken. If NEC colleagues believe that it is wrong for Conference to “tie the hands” of the TUC delegation with specific instructions about the submission of motions to the TUC then the NEC should either propose amendments or speak against such proposals. Once Conference has taken a decision, whether it was supported or opposed by the NEC (and regardless of any “qualifications”) that is the policy of the Union. UNISON's affiliation to the TUC is implemented by the NEC in accordance with its powers under Rule D.2.9.7 and as such is subject to Rule D.2.1 which provides that the NEC shall not do anything “that is inconsistent with” the policy of the Union “as laid down by the National Delegate Conference.
In approving for submission to the delegation meeting a selection of three motions which failed to comply with a specific Conference decision taken just three weeks previously the Presidential Team were acting on behalf of the NEC but, since what they did was inconsistent with Conference policy, neither the NEC nor the Presidential Team had the power under Rule to act as they did. As a Rule Book anorak I shall raise this with the General Secretary.
More important than these procedural points however (and they are important) I think it is a grave error that UNISON has not (yet) taken the opportunity to put on the TUC agenda a demand which unifies the interests of workers in the public and private sectors. We should do this because we have thousands of private sector members who are often forgotten – but we should also do it to defend the interests of our public sector members.
One of the greatest threats to public servants at the moment is the attempt on the part of the Government and employers to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers – seen most recently in the demand for a public sector pay freeze from the £250k a year head of the Audit Commission.
UNISON's response to this should not be to focus on the falling membership of UNITE and to stoke up fears that they will start poaching our public sector members. Instead we should be demanding that, as well as protecting conditions in the public sector, the TUC must fight for the same rights and conditions for private sector workers. The decision of our National Delegate Conference that one of our motions to the TUC should be a defence of final salary pension schemes across both the public and private sectors was not just a timely identification of a coming battle ground for our public sector members, it was also an intelligent attempt to build solidarity beyond the confines of the public sector.
The arrogant refusal to implement a Conference decision because of a foolish misunderstanding of the meaning of “support with qualifications” threatens to set back the interests of our members.
The only response to this argument at the delegation meeting was to add the word “pensions” to a call to oppose cuts in public services. This is positive but does nothing to indicate the need for a united campaign to defend final salary schemes across both the public and private sectors which was what Conference specifically agreed that we should do.
I hope that the NEC Policy Committee, who will have a chance in August to consider our three amendments to motions on the TUC Preliminary Agenda will try to repair the damage which has been done by the failure of the Presidential Team to implement Conference Policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
The NEC meeting was followed by a meeting of the TUC delegation which I attended as an NEC member.
The delegation meeting had to choose three motions to submit to the TUC. In line with what was described as “the way we have always done things” (but was in fact in line with decisions taken only last year) the delegation meeting was presented with three draft motions from which to choose any three.
Formally these motions came from the Presidential Team (who had been elected the previous day) in consultation with the Chair of the Policy Committee (who had also been elected the previous day). In practice they had been drafted by officers.
Delegates queried the arrangements for submission of motions and were assured that all the “constituent bodies” of the TUC delegation (Regions, Service Groups, Self-Organised Groups etc.) had received adequate notice to submit either motions or ideas for motions and that where this had been done these had been taken into account.
The motions dealt with defending the NHS, fighting the BNP and public services.
The first motion “Defending Our NHS” calls for an end to privatisation in the Health Service and is likely to be the heart of one of the major composite motions at this year's Trades Union Congress.
The second motion “Fighting the BNP and Far Right” concentrates on a number of specific action points instructing the General Council on how to assist trade unions in responding to the rise of the far right. Delegates successfully proposed amendments to this motion from the floor in order to add a reference to “Unite Against Fascism” alongside “Searchlight.” Again I am sure that other trade unions will submit motions on this topic in the light of the results of the European elections and the confusion created by the new Employment Act and that this motion will become part of a Composite.
The third motion “Public Services and the Economy” deals with the need to protect public services in a recession. This gave rise to some debate as (of the three motions before the meeting) this was the only one in which any attempt could be made to implement a specific decision of our National Delegate Conference.
When this year's National Delegate Conference agreed Composite D “Defending UNISON Members' Pension Schemes” it took a specific decision as follows;
“UNISON to bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector.”
I argued that the Union should comply with this Conference decision and that, if the only way to do this was to add this demand into the motion on public services and the economy then this is what should have been done (making compensatory cuts elsewhere in the motion to comply with the TUC's stringent 250 word limit).
Both before and during the meeting it was pointed out to me (in respect of Composite D at National Delegate Conference) that “this had been our qualification” when the policy of the NEC on this motion had been agreed as “support with qualifications”. This laughable argument (in response to which I confess to having laughed) reflects a misunderstanding which is widespread at Mabledon Place, where there appears to be a view that if Conference passes a policy which the NEC has “supported with qualifications” then the NEC is somehow entitled to implement the Conference decision only in part because of those “qualifications”. There is no basis in Rule for this view.
I believe that the failure of UNISON to implement the policy of our Conference to “bring a motion to the TUC calling on them to organise a united campaign in defence of final salary pension schemes in both the private and public sector” is both constitutionally and politically mistaken. If NEC colleagues believe that it is wrong for Conference to “tie the hands” of the TUC delegation with specific instructions about the submission of motions to the TUC then the NEC should either propose amendments or speak against such proposals. Once Conference has taken a decision, whether it was supported or opposed by the NEC (and regardless of any “qualifications”) that is the policy of the Union. UNISON's affiliation to the TUC is implemented by the NEC in accordance with its powers under Rule D.2.9.7 and as such is subject to Rule D.2.1 which provides that the NEC shall not do anything “that is inconsistent with” the policy of the Union “as laid down by the National Delegate Conference.
In approving for submission to the delegation meeting a selection of three motions which failed to comply with a specific Conference decision taken just three weeks previously the Presidential Team were acting on behalf of the NEC but, since what they did was inconsistent with Conference policy, neither the NEC nor the Presidential Team had the power under Rule to act as they did. As a Rule Book anorak I shall raise this with the General Secretary.
More important than these procedural points however (and they are important) I think it is a grave error that UNISON has not (yet) taken the opportunity to put on the TUC agenda a demand which unifies the interests of workers in the public and private sectors. We should do this because we have thousands of private sector members who are often forgotten – but we should also do it to defend the interests of our public sector members.
One of the greatest threats to public servants at the moment is the attempt on the part of the Government and employers to drive a wedge between public and private sector workers – seen most recently in the demand for a public sector pay freeze from the £250k a year head of the Audit Commission.
UNISON's response to this should not be to focus on the falling membership of UNITE and to stoke up fears that they will start poaching our public sector members. Instead we should be demanding that, as well as protecting conditions in the public sector, the TUC must fight for the same rights and conditions for private sector workers. The decision of our National Delegate Conference that one of our motions to the TUC should be a defence of final salary pension schemes across both the public and private sectors was not just a timely identification of a coming battle ground for our public sector members, it was also an intelligent attempt to build solidarity beyond the confines of the public sector.
The arrogant refusal to implement a Conference decision because of a foolish misunderstanding of the meaning of “support with qualifications” threatens to set back the interests of our members.
The only response to this argument at the delegation meeting was to add the word “pensions” to a call to oppose cuts in public services. This is positive but does nothing to indicate the need for a united campaign to defend final salary schemes across both the public and private sectors which was what Conference specifically agreed that we should do.
I hope that the NEC Policy Committee, who will have a chance in August to consider our three amendments to motions on the TUC Preliminary Agenda will try to repair the damage which has been done by the failure of the Presidential Team to implement Conference Policy.
(Update on Sunday 12 July – check out this cogent argument for the defence of defined benefit pension schemes across the private and public sectors over at Ian’s UNITE Site.)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
UNISON GMB merger?
Last night UNISON and the GMB held a joint reception.
Our members in local government might think that joint industrial action against real terms pay cuts would be of more value - GMB members in the health service might possibly think likewise. For now though we can coordinate free food and drink.
There was much jollity about the prospect at some stage of a UNISON-GMB merger. For the moment I think that this has as much to do with the GMB's previous flirtation with UNITE as it does with the potential industrial logic of such a merger in the public services.
Activists in both unions need to consider how we improve joint working at a rank and file level. Should merger seriously appear on our agenda we need to be vigilant in defence of lay member democracy. While we are at it we need the same joint working with brothers and sisters in UNITE.
If we are going down the road of "super unions" then a merger between UNITE, UNISON and the GMB makes just as much sense as a UNISON-GMB merger.
There is a future for small and specialist unions which organise particular industries, but is there a future for what we have now in terms of three large general unions, competing for members in some areas and generally failing to coordinate effectively. I don't know.
Activists need to think about this.
Our members in local government might think that joint industrial action against real terms pay cuts would be of more value - GMB members in the health service might possibly think likewise. For now though we can coordinate free food and drink.
There was much jollity about the prospect at some stage of a UNISON-GMB merger. For the moment I think that this has as much to do with the GMB's previous flirtation with UNITE as it does with the potential industrial logic of such a merger in the public services.
Activists in both unions need to consider how we improve joint working at a rank and file level. Should merger seriously appear on our agenda we need to be vigilant in defence of lay member democracy. While we are at it we need the same joint working with brothers and sisters in UNITE.
If we are going down the road of "super unions" then a merger between UNITE, UNISON and the GMB makes just as much sense as a UNISON-GMB merger.
There is a future for small and specialist unions which organise particular industries, but is there a future for what we have now in terms of three large general unions, competing for members in some areas and generally failing to coordinate effectively. I don't know.
Activists need to think about this.
Right to work - not workfare
TUC Congress is nearing the end of our business, debating Motion 23 from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which calls for asylum seekers to have the right to work whilst their application for asylum is considered.
This restoration of rights to asylum seekers has to be right and Congress will clearly pass the motion overwhelmingly. It is ironic that asylum seekers are refused the right to work whilst benefit claimants are set to be required to work in order to receive their benefits!
Taken together the motions passed during the week amount to a pretty long wish list of the things the trade union movement wants from the Government.
The question of how we obtain greater political influence for these progressive policies is increasingly acute.
Last year's Congress was dominated by misplaced hope and faith in the then new Prime Minister. This year's Congress is dominated by a miserable poverty of ideas up on the top table about how to make political progress.
Mark Serwotka is now moving Emergency Motion One sounding alarm bells about the Government's appalling welfare reform plans.
I don't know how many of the trade union group of MPs will have the courage and principle to oppose these plans for workfare, but I do know that those MPs associated with the Labour Representation Committee will do so.
The leadership of the big unions kept their distance from the LRC when it was established for fear of losing influence by associating themselves with the hard left.
These unions have consistently failed to demonstrate that they thereby have such influence in respect of anything that matters to our members.
We have to face the reality that there are only a small number of MPs who are on our side.
It is time for a different approach, working with our few real friends in Parliament.
This restoration of rights to asylum seekers has to be right and Congress will clearly pass the motion overwhelmingly. It is ironic that asylum seekers are refused the right to work whilst benefit claimants are set to be required to work in order to receive their benefits!
Taken together the motions passed during the week amount to a pretty long wish list of the things the trade union movement wants from the Government.
The question of how we obtain greater political influence for these progressive policies is increasingly acute.
Last year's Congress was dominated by misplaced hope and faith in the then new Prime Minister. This year's Congress is dominated by a miserable poverty of ideas up on the top table about how to make political progress.
Mark Serwotka is now moving Emergency Motion One sounding alarm bells about the Government's appalling welfare reform plans.
I don't know how many of the trade union group of MPs will have the courage and principle to oppose these plans for workfare, but I do know that those MPs associated with the Labour Representation Committee will do so.
The leadership of the big unions kept their distance from the LRC when it was established for fear of losing influence by associating themselves with the hard left.
These unions have consistently failed to demonstrate that they thereby have such influence in respect of anything that matters to our members.
We have to face the reality that there are only a small number of MPs who are on our side.
It is time for a different approach, working with our few real friends in Parliament.
Health and Safety debate at the TUC
Congress has agreed Composite 21 which calls for a new approach from the Health and Safety Executive, moving away from self-regulation and emphasising inspection and enforcement.
Also, and very sensibly, the composite calls for a duty on employers to provide risk assessments to union representatives. It is implicit in other duties upon employers that they should do this, but the lack of clarity in the law is a major obstacle to promoting health and safety in the workplace.
We are now debating the rather odd Composite 22 which calls for us to mark Workers Memorial Day (in April) by having a public holiday in October. Since this does not seem to make too much sense I think I shall go and get a coffee...
Also, and very sensibly, the composite calls for a duty on employers to provide risk assessments to union representatives. It is implicit in other duties upon employers that they should do this, but the lack of clarity in the law is a major obstacle to promoting health and safety in the workplace.
We are now debating the rather odd Composite 22 which calls for us to mark Workers Memorial Day (in April) by having a public holiday in October. Since this does not seem to make too much sense I think I shall go and get a coffee...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)