Preparations for the TUC continue whilst the rest of us sun ourselves

It is reassuring to know that whilst some of us are enjoying ourselves, the routines of the labour and trade union movement are continuing to play themselves out.

Today I got the annual letter inviting me to express an interest in speaking at September’s Trades Union Congress. It may be that the UNISON Presidential Team will once more wish to spare me the stress and heartache of having to address Congress on behalf of our Union, but I shall volunteer! If any readers have any suggestions as to what I should volunteer to speak on then let me know!

This reminds me that, as I missed last week’s TUC Delegation meeting I have not reported on it here – but a fellow NEC member, James Anthony, has a report on his blog. (Well worth a look, just to see that there is a blogger on the UNISON NEC who happily find himself in agreement with the majority – a circumstance likely to give rise to great optimism).

Support Union activists at home and abroad!

One of the most important tasks for trade unionists is to defend our brothers and sisters when they are victimised. As I am not in London I won’t be at the protest outside the Iranian embassy tomorrow – UNISON is supporting this protest against the jailing of union leaders.

We don’t face the same hazards in this country!

However it is still important that our Union responds vigorously when our activists are attacked – as is the case with the suspension of Manchester health activist Karen Reissman. Karen has been suspended for speaking out and because she is an effective UNISON lay activist. The result of a strike ballot is expected soon.

Our activists are the heart and soul of our Union – and when employers attack them we have to be vigorous in our response.

Sun, sea and strike ballots

Today’s update to the UNISON website is encouraging news about the local government strike ballot.

Following overwhelming rejection of a 2% pay offer in a consultative ballot UNISON's pay and single status group is now recommending the union proceeds to an industrial action ballot. In tandem with UNISON, the GMB and TGWU-Unite are also preparing to ballot their members on industrial action.

Something to look forward to when I get back to work, but for now, no more blogging…

No to 2% in local government - and in health???

So there is a new pay offer in the NHS, and it is barely more than fourpence ha’penny extra bus fare for the negotiators…

I agree with the individual member of the Health Service Group Executive (SGE) who thinks this is not worth accepting. I understand that the SGE won’t be making a recommendation in the membership ballot, which (you might think) is not the very best way to build the confidence of our members to take the industrial action necessary to break the 2% pay norm.

If the negotiators say “it therefore follows that if members wish to reject the offer, they must also be prepared to support industrial action in the event of a subsequent industrial action ballot” then that is not exactly calculated to encourage members to express such support.

Another way of putting things would be to say that “inflation is running at 4.3% and earnings across the economy are rising by 3.6% but the employers have offered you a 2% pay rise. This is in line with the government's 2% public sector pay policy. It's a pay cut, not a pay rise! And you deserve better.”

In local government the Union made a clear recommendation that members reject 2% and prepare for strike action – and the members rejected 2% on the basis of being prepared to take strike action.

In preparation for the consultation on an offer worth 2% in local government members were asked to bear in mind the following;

the cost of living is currently increasing by 4.5%
increases in the cost of housing, fuel and energy, council tax and childcare are even higher
pay across the economy is rising by 3.6%
UNISON is co-ordinating our pay campaign with our health and other service groups and with other public sector unions.

Before asking our members in health their opinion on an offer worth 2% UNISON says simply that “the parties to the Staff Council Executive
believe that this formal offer represents the best that can be achieved through negotiation.”

I hope that rank and file members in health will have more confidence in their strength than is shown by this weak-kneed approach endorsed by the SGE. I am sure a rank and file campaign to vote to reject 2% will gather strength in the next few days and will blog about this as soon as I hear more.

In the mean time members in local government need to prepare for a strike ballot. On 6 August the Pay & Single Status Project Group will meet to discuss in detail the results of the pay consultation and consider the next steps in our campaign, a further update will be issued officially next week.

Branches must continue to build awareness and support with all members for the pay campaign and recruit non members and to help us fight this pay cut.

The rejection of 2% by our members has provided a basis to go back to the employers and Government and ask for more. I doubt we will see more for our local government members without strike action, however at least we have the ability to continue arguing having rejected 2%. Our members in health have to vote to reject 2% in order to get into that position by 13 September – until then the Government can hope that we will swallow the first year of this new policy of pay cuts.

Unfortunately the timetable for the ballot of members in health runs right through the dates for this year’s TUC Congress, at which it appears that any sound composite on public service pay based upon submissions from PCS and the NUT will now be accompanied by a General Council statement. UNISON's position will obviously be complicated by not knowing the result of the consultation in health. What an unfortunate coincidence indeed.

Will the General Council clearly reject the 2% pay norm and back all those taking action against it, or will it equivocate in anticipation of a General election? Experience within UNISON suggests that both approaches have support within the trade union movement…

Local Government members will say no to 2%

I don't normally do predictions as I don't believe in astrology (because I am a Capricorn) but here is a safe bet...

When the results of the consultative ballot of UNISON members in local government are out they’ll appear on the local government page of the website. They’ll show a significant majority to reject the current 2% offer and to prepare for an official strike ballot. We need to find ways to coordinate with civil servants and postal workers, and to use the forthcoming TUC Congress to build that unity.

If we can build unity of large sections of the public service workforce we can defeat the 2% norm.

Equal Pay - the Allen decision and debate within the trade unions

The long awaited judgement of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the case of Allen –v- GMB is now available online. Before I venture any opinion on this matter please remember that this is a personal blog and the opinions I express are my own and are not expressed on behalf of UNISON.

UNISON’s position on Equal Pay is set out on the website, this includes specific guidance for individual members and a persuasive riposte to the attempts by “no win no fee” solicitors to encourage members to litigate against the Union.

The Allen case is one such attempt to sue the GMB (and there are similar cases against UNISON and the TGWU) alleging that the Unions have failed to fight for equal pay with sufficient vigour and then alleging that this amounts to unlawful discrimination.

As far as I can see the Employment Appeals Tribunal seems to have demolished this argument fairly well, in so doing they have supported the right of a trade union to determine priorities in negotiations. The question of how that is done, and by whom, is a question for trade union members (not the courts).

Not everyone is happy with the approach of the trade unions to equal pay – particularly in relation to Single Status in local government. The implementation of Single Status has provoked and is provoking industrial action, and is causing headaches for local authorities in, for example, Wales, the South East and the South West.

Causing headaches for employers is no bad thing – although not of course an end in itself in most circumstances…However if we are going to get the best deal in achieving equal pay then this will be achieved through trade union action.

As trade unionists we need to debate our approach to achieving equal pay and to decide democratically on our priorities, strategy and tactics. Litigation against the unions is not the way to resolve our differences on this question.

This decision ought to pave the way for the democratic debate about our approach to this question which we have been denying ourselves for months. The lobby of Parliament earlier this month was a good start – now perhaps we can start sharing, officially, full information about Single Status negotiations in every authority and brainstorming how to get the best deal for our members in open discussion rather than avoiding public discussion because of pending litigation.

But as I said, all of this is just a personal opinion…

How improved is an improved pay offer?

So – an improved pay offer in health? If it is as predicted in the papers last week then surely we would be foolish to accept it?

Or are we going to fall for the line from the Government that they won’t back down whatever we do so we might as well do nothing?

What do members in the Health Service think?

This perhaps?

TUC agenda - out today

The Preliminary Agenda for this year’s TUC is now available online. The Rules have changed so that whereas in the past UNISON has only been permitted to propose two amendments to motions on the agenda now organisations with more than one million members are allowed one additional amendment for each 500,000 members or part thereof.

So by my reckoning UNISON will have three amendments (assuming that it is each additional 500,000 members above the initial million…)

UNISON’s two motions are in Part Four of the Agenda, as are the motions from PCS and the NUT on public sector pay. UNISON’s delegation meeting on Thursday will decide on UNISON’s amendments. At the moment the only mention of the local government pay dispute (involving the largest bargaining group in the economy) is a short motion from the Association of Educational Psychologists asking the TUC to stick up for the small specialist unions in local government…

Does local government really need separate specialist unions for small professional groups, or should we be trying to build UNISON as an inclusive union that is able to represent particular as well as general interests?

One local government activist I’ll miss at this year’s TUC will be my friend and comrade Tony Staunton from Plymouth, who made a distinctive contribution to last year’s delegation and whose years of service to UNISON deserve respect and admiration.

2%? No thanks!

Normal blogging can now be resumed as I have returned from a few days away. Still no sign of the Preliminary Agenda for the TUC – which should be online here tomorrow.

The biggest issue for the public service unions must surely be the Government’s 2% pay norm, which they want to impose on us for several years, even though the Retail Price Index is increasing at more than twice that level. I understand that both PCS and the NUT will have motions on public sector pay - and that UNISON will therefore be able to consider appropriate amendments. With our two largest service groups facing a real terms pay cut right now we do need to give this issue a high priority.

The response to the consultation with UNISON members in local government should be with us shortly – if this doesn’t show a large majority for rejecting 2% I’ll be shocked. I note that the Government have hinted in public at a tiny movement on pay in the National Health Service, but without breaching the 2% limit.

We need to break the 2% limit as soon as we can – or public service workers face a downward spiral of pay and morale. The question is not whether or not there will be massive strike action over public service pay – only when.

The sooner we take united action and break the 2% limit the better for our members – and the better for Labour’s election prospects! If the Government get away with 2% this year it will be that bit harder to get our members to vote for a fourth term - and it will be increasingly likely that the fight over public sector pay will break out at a time which will be even more electorally damaging.

Members endorse new look pension scheme

In an unsurprising result the new-look Local Government Pension Scheme has been massively supported in the membership ballot. Now there is a UNISON policy to support the new-look LGPS because now our members have spoken. Democracy means the maximum freedom to express opinions before decisions are made – now that the decision has been made we move on and carry out the decision.

We now need to ensure that there is maximum response to the consultation on extending protection for LGPS scheme members who will be 60 on or before 1 April 2020 – see LGPS Bulletin 64 for details.

Responses to CLG formal consultation on extending the protection to 2020 should be sent to: Nicola Rochester, Zone2/F7 Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE. Email to nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made a commitment that up to 50% of the savings arising from the removal of the 85 Rule on service after 2008 - and the provision to allow members to exchange more of their pension for a higher lump sum at retirement - could be ploughed back into the new scheme.

UNISON has calculated that, even with the improvements and the existing protections for the Rule of 85, less than 50% of the savings have been used. This means that the minimal cost of improving the protection simply removes the imbalance between the saving to the employer/taxpayer and the increase in the cost to the member.

Because of course we will (on average) be paying more for our pension from next April, as we enter the second year of the Gordon Brown pay freeze…!

Apologies (btw) for lack of posts but not only do I have an appeal hearing to prepare but I had to take time out to read the new Harry Potter book. Clearly Voldemort represents the forces of capitalist globalisation, whilst Harry embodies the fighting spirit of the working class. The Deathly Hallows symbolise the potential power of unity amongst the public service trade unions in the fight over pay…

Pay - let's be clear about 2.5%

Now pay talks in Health have failed to produce any significant progress with the English employers still refusing even to follow the example of the devolved administrations and remove the staging of the miserly 2.5% awarded by the Pay Review Body (and offered to non-PRB staff).

This follows on from the stalling of talks for Local Government workers last week, as the employers refused, despite repeated hints, to increase their 2% offer – even to 2.5%. The position of the Local Government Conference was clearly to reject 2% and also to oppose 2.5% should it be offered. I understand that this is also the position of the Health Service Group.

These clear policy positions adopted by elected lay representatives need to be borne in mind when considering the occasionally ambiguous comments on the UNISON website.

Yesterday’s story on health says, for example that;

“The government's decision to stage the 2.5% awarded by the independent pay review body has provoked anger amongst nurses, paramedics, therapists and other health workers."The retail price index is currently running at 4.4% so a 2.5% rise is already well below the level of inflation," said Mr Jackson. "Staging it has reduced its value still further to just 1.9%."Our health workers deserve better and need more to just to keep up with the rising cost of living." The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have decided not to stage the pay award.”

The lead comment from our General Secretary this week, is;

“The threat of local government strike action in England, Wales and Northern Ireland moved a step closer this week with all three unions formally registering a dispute over this year’s miserly 2% pay offer.Pay talks have dragged on. We know that employers have budgeted for a rise of at least 2.5% - it’s time for them to act responsibly and come up with a better offer or face a ballot for strike action.”

All of this is true, but our opposition to 2.5% could also be mentioned. The Local Government Conference put it fairly well;

“We believe that a settlement based on a 2.5% total "envelope" would not be acceptable to our members, however it was packaged. With inflation at an eight year high of 4.8% and further rises in interest rates predicted this would amount to a real and substantial further cut in living standards for Local Government Workers.”

Also, in Scotland and Wales where health workers have been offered the full 2.5% backdated to 1 April UNISON is rejecting this and continuing – rightly – to demand a proper pay rise (not a pay cut).

Two weeks ago the Chair of UNISON's Scottish Health Group said: "The 2.5% award imposed by the Scottish Executive does not address the aspirations of UNISON workers who sustain vital health services. Problems of low pay and identified and acknowledged in the NHS, but this settlement does nothing to address this. A pay increase of less than £6 per week is an insult to our low paid members"

We have an opportunity to stand together with our brothers and sisters in other public service Unions. This is an opportunity to do more than push up pay awards worth 1.9% and 2% to 2.5% when inflation is well above 4%.

I think I agree with Gregor Gall writing in today’s Morning Star; “the unions need to recognise that, by acting together industrially they can punch well above their weight politically.”

Gall goes on to tell us (the unions) to be “surefooted enough” to know that we can wring better deals out of this Government – and force Labour leftwards to reconnect with people’s social democratic aspirations. (Or – as Dave Prentis put it to the Labour Link Forum; “steering our party back to its true values, firmly grounded in policies that resonate with ordinary working people.”)

As to the last bit, well I hope so – but I think our members would settle with a pay rise that at least keeps pace with rising prices (which would of course mean breaking Brown’s pay policy).

There are (at least) two ways this could go. We should recognise that we need to unite and take on the public sector pay policy right now – campaigning vigorously amongst our members to reject 2.5% as much as 2% and whether or not it is staged, and work towards united public sector strike action on the widest basis and earliest date practicable.

The alternative is to find reasons for foot dragging and obfuscation, delaying action by round after round of consultation and claiming an unnecessarily modest increase to the current offers as a victory achieved by patient dialogue with our friends in Government.

Guess which one I prefer?

UNISON's political Committees

Just a quick post as I take a break from preparing another appeal.

I can now post the composition of UNISON's Political Committees. In the case of the Labour Link Committee this is the list of the twelve NEC members elected by the NEC to that Committee. Elections for eleven directly elected members to represent the Regions (excluding Northern Ireland) are underway and nominations have just closed. The Labour Link Committee has formal authority over UNISON's work in the Labour Party - it will have to decide whether the popular action taken to restrict donations to the Party during the LGPS dispute should be repeated now that we are moving into dispute with the (Labour?) Government over pay in our two largest service groups.

The GPF (General Political Fund) Committee consists only of the twelve NEC members elected by and from those members of the NEC who pay into that section of the fund (since you can pay into both sections some NEC members are (un)lucky enough to be on both Committees. The GPF Committee controls expenditure on non-party political campaigns and (for example) funded the recent recruitment advertising featuring lions, tigers etc. (I shall restrain myself from any catty remarks on that...)

Anyway here are the members of the Committees;

LABOUR LINK
James Anthony
Angela Bowen
Sue Forster
Mike Hayes
Gill Malik
June Nelson
Lynn Poulton
Norma Stephenson
Sam Selon
Irene Stacey
Steve Warwick
Linda Wilkinson

GPF COMMITTEE
James Anthony
Sarah Bradfield
Jane Carolan
Graeme Horn
Maureen Le Marinel
Annette Mansell-Green – Co-Chair
Helen Rose
Alison Shepherd
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Chris Tansley – Co-Chair
Steve Warwick

I posted the membership of all other NEC Committees previously.

Waltham Forest members rejecting 2%

I suppose I am not given to such silliness but I feel a little sad to note that the first birthday of this blog passed unremarked upon here, although I am pleased that the anniversary post was so much in the spirit of the blog, as is this latest news...

I was pleased to address a meeting of the Waltham Forest local government branch today on the question of pay, alongside comrades from the PCS, NUT and CWU. The UNISON members present voted unanimously to reject 2%.

No one seemed keen on 2.5% either…

Congratulations to the Waltham Forest branch for organising the meeting – they have a further joint union meeting on pay coming up, so all London branches need to follow suit!

UK Black Pride

Here is a post about an organization I have just added a link to at the request of my friend and comrade Khi Rafe, UNISON Greater London Regional Equality Convenor.

UK Black Pride (UKBP) is delighted to announce the official UK Black Pride festival will be held on Saturday 18th August and we are proud that London will host this year’s festival.

London is the most diverse city in Western Europe, with almost half of Britain's black and minority ethnic residents, over 300 languages and 14 faiths celebrated London is one of the world's most culturally diverse cities.

The festival will host a fun filled day of music and artistic entertainment, live performances by the hottest new acts, music by London’s best DJ’s, market place and information stalls and much more. There will be something for everyone to enjoy and more importantly the festival is an opportunity to proudly support and celebrate the talents, successes and achievements of the UK’s Black, Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender community.

UKBP will continue to work with our partner organisations, sponsors and wider LGBT community to celebrate and to promote the diversity within the UK LGBT community.

UKBP look forward to welcoming you on Saturday 18th August.

Happy Pride!

Why is it so difficult to take legal and industrial action?

I worry sometimes about how timid we have become as trade unionists. Twenty years ago when I started work I was proud to be part of the 1986 Lewisham “HAC” strike in which members of my then Union, NALGO, struck for five weeks for the safety of workers in the Housing Advice Centre whose security screens were being removed.

We didn’t need to have a secret ballot, we acted on policy agreed by the branch and endorsed at my first mass meeting, of 1,400 members at Catford dog track. Five years later, working in Lambeth, I was one of the workers who engaged in a ten week unlawful occupation of advice centres threatened with closure, saving one of them for five more years to help local people.

Since 1992 and the tightening up of the Tory anti-union laws, left in place under a New Labour Government, the threat to the Union’s resources from unofficial action – and the consequent repudiation of unofficial action by the Union has meant that we have to jump through more and more hoops to get official strike ballots.

The natural bureaucratic tendencies of trade union officialdom have made it progressively harder even to ballot members for action – and when we do it is relatively easy for the employers to trip us up legally. That’s why it is wonderful to be able to wish the Fremantle strikers well for their next day of strike action next week. We need to rethink UNISON’s industrial action procedures to encourage strike action in local disputes as an effective means of putting pressure on employers and strengthening Union organisation.

As strike action became more difficult through the 1990s the branch I was part of turned increasingly to legal action through tribunal applications made collectively or individually on behalf of our members. I recollect using an application for a protective award as a useful tool to help avoid compulsory redundancies in one difficult budget round, and also that mass tribunal litigation was key to restoring lost conditions of service in our Housing neighbourhoods. Also, when our employer knew that we were prepared to challenge almost any dismissal in an employment tribunal, no matter how justified they thought it was, it kept them on their procedural toes in every other case.

However, the Government responded to the increase in tribunal litigation by making it harder to lodge claims, and easier for employers to obtain orders for costs against the Union (although this was always possible…) The Unions generally, and UNISON in particular, have accommodated to this development (and also crucially sought to limit the costs of professional indemnity insurance) by adopting a new approach to tribunal litigation.

In accordance with UNISON’s Representation Guide, lay activists (and indeed full time officials) are no longer supposed to lodge tribunal complaints on behalf of the Union. Instead we complete CASE Forms which are filtered at Regional Office before being passed on to the solicitors, who will only take a case if they judge that it has a “reasonable prospect of success.” This means that the Union does not take marginal cases, is unlikely to set new precedents or explore new legal avenues to defend workers’ rights, and does not weigh up the organisational costs and benefits of litigation, since the lawyers look only at the legal merits of any claim.

I think we need to rethink this and adopt a more combative and participatory approach to tribunal litigation. To do this would mean that the NEC would have to be prepared to indemnify activists and officials representing members at tribunals, and that the Union would need to have clear and objectively justifiable criteria for which cases to take, which would have to be applied consistently.

Currently when we are in dispute with employers locally there is a grave danger that our industrial action procedures tie one hand behind our back and the Representation Guide ties the other – probably not the best way to win?

If anyone out there has any bright ideas about what we should do about these problems, I’m all ears…

November 3rd - demonstrate for our Health Service

Right there we are then! The national demonstration in defence of the National Health Service is now on November 3rd and not October 13th.

Let’s mobilise the maximum number of UNISON members and show Gordon Brown and his government that we will stand up to them against cutbacks and privatisation.

On an unrelated note, the UNISON TUC delegation will meet on 2 August to consider any potential amendments to the TUC Congress in the name of UNISON. Amendments have to be a to a motion on the Preliminary Agenda. Which should appear here before too long.

Time to strike for fair pay in public services

The BBC have noticed that there might be strike action in the NHS. Admittedly this is because the RCN have said that they will consult on strike action over the staging of the 2.5% awarded by the Pay Review Body (not over the amount of the award itself).

I can see the slogans now. “Pay us peanuts but all at once!”

Although it would cost millions, the argument for consistency between England and the devolved administrations could well sway the Government. I think we will then have to watch out for attempts to convince us that 2.5% for health workers backdated to 1 April is somehow acceptable, never mind that it falls well below the rate of price inflation. This is not the view of the Health Service Group within UNISON.

In the same vein, we have to be alert in local government to the risk that any eventual increase in the current 2% offer, even if it is only to 2.5%, will require yet another round of consultation before we move to a strike ballot. As it stands the employers won’t increase the offer so we have no choice but to press ahead. UNISON’s Local Government Conference was fairly clear that 2.5% is not good enough.

No more blogging for a bit as I have to prepare a dismissal appeal…

No pay talks today - no pay motion for TUC (yet)

Good to see an official report of the NEC meeting on the UNISON website promptly. I’ll circulate the full and unexpurgated version to London branches over the weekend – but won’t repeat the attempt at almost live blogging from an NEC meeting having been politely requested not to by the President.

I am pleased the trade union side of the NJC decided not to waste their time today talking to local government employers who aren’t coming forward with a revised pay offer (though I can’t see why we should view 2.5% any differently to 2% if and when it is offered.

I do think there is a bit of a danger of whistling to keep our spirits up in relation to the policies of the Government – I believe that this misplaced optimism underpinned the decision of yesterday’s TUC delegation meeting not to put forward a motion on public sector pay proposed by Health NEC member Kate Ahrens, and supported by the Chairs of both the Health and Local Government Service Groups.

UNISON’s submissions to the TUC will instead be on public services and affordable housing (both important issues in my view, but not as high a priority for our Union right now as fighting the pay freeze). The eventual decision, following a strong intervention from the General Secretary, was clear, with 66 delegates supporting the motion on Public Services, 45 backing affordable housing and 29 supporting the motion on pay.

Dave Prentis did give a pretty unequivocal assurance that the issue of public sector pay would be on the TUC agenda – whether in a General Council statement or in an emergency motion, and promised the delegation a report back from a meeting of the TUC Public Service Liaison Group in the next few days.

Conclusion of the General Secretary's report to the UNISON NEC

In response to questions, Dave Prentis has confirmed that many General Secretaries met with the Prime Minister yesterday and protested at the appointment of Digby Jones as a Minister. He has also pointed out this “Government of all the talents” has excluded trade unionists. We are told that this criticism will be the subject of many speeches in the coming months.

So that will have the Prime Minister well worried then?

The final element of the General Secretary’s report is on pay. He is concerned that we should know how to coordinate within UNISON in the run up to a meeting of the TUC Public Service Liaison Group on 15 July, there will also be a separate meeting with PCS.

CWU have reported that support for their industrial action is increasing.

Unfortunately the General Secretary is of the view the “Democracy in UNISON guidelines” preclude branches taking initiatives such as organising joint union rallies (!) (This is precisely the sort of draconian interpretation of the guidelines which some of us were criticised as scaremongers for predicting…)

I suggest that activists use local Trades Councils to convene meetings rather than take up too much time debating internal union guidelines when we should be fighting to break the 2% pay norm.

Finally, Dave is reporting that Keith Sonnet, our Deputy General Secretary will be seeking election as General Secretary of the Public Services International - the international grouping of public service trade unions. This will be a contested election and the outcome will be known after the PSI Congress at the end of September.

The President has wished Keith good luck ("not that we want rid of you or anything"). The General Secretary's report has only lasted about two and a half hours...

General Secretary's report continued

The good news about Gordon Brown is social housing and the abandonment of super casinos. Dave Prentis says that “if” Gordon Brown goes down the path of marketisation we will oppose him, but that we seem to have a team of ministers in health whom we can work with. (If?) (Is there more than one Gordon Brown?)

Dave also points out that the SNP administration in Scotland is implementing a number of measures which reflect our policies as will the Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition in Wales. I look forward to hearing about the lessons which our Labour Link Committee (to which I was sadly not elected by my NEC colleagues) have drawn for our work in England.

Without pausing for breath (or questions) Dave has moved on to report on NHS Together and Karen Jennings is now telling us that we need to move the national demonstration planned for 13 October because of difficulties with venues. The new date is likely to be 3 November, when a better venue is available.

Debate on pensions at the UNISON NEC

On pensions, the General Secretary wants us all to respond to the statutory consultation on extending protection from 2016 to 2020 – clearly this is important since, even though 2020 isn’t good enough in my view, it is better than 2016. Moving forward Dave says that we need to pursue the issue of governance of our pension fund – UNISON’s view is that a European Directive requires pension fund members to be represented on the decision making bodies, whereas the Government view is that, as the LGPS is a statutory fund they are not required to concede this representation.

Our pension funds are our money and we do need to pursue this campaign, Peter Gaskin from Eastern Region has intervened to support Dave on this point and I shall certainly report further on this blog about this developing area of the Union’s work.

Glenn Kelly, representing local government has asked about instructions being issued to branches that they may not issue recommendations contrary to the national recommendation to accept the LGPS proposals. I agree that this is foolish control freakery and made some comments to this effect. I was pleased to receive a friendly response from the Chair of the Service Group Liaison Committee who made passing reference to a speech I had given at the Local Government Conference.

Dave Prentis thinks that we should not be allowed to use UNISON resources to express dissent from a national recommendation – this is clearly a new departure for UNISON and activists need to consider how we respond.

The fundamental error which I think the General Secretary is making is that he says that UNISON has agreed its policy, whereas the policy of the Union will be decided by our members in the ballot and, until that decision is taken by the membership the policy has not been set and different points of view must be allowed to find expression.

General Secretary's report to UNISON NEC

The General Secretary began his report to the UNISON NEC this morning with reference to the Union having achieved Investors in People status and by praising the role of UNISON Welfare in supporting members who have been affected by flooding.

He then moved on to discuss Equal Pay, and I think that now we have had a briefing on the subject in an open session at Conference I can safely report some of this discussion, which prompted numerous contributions from the floor.

We have been told again that there will be a “roadshow” of meetings around the Union to consult all parts of the Union on how to resource mass Equal Pay litigation. This won’t be like the ACAS sanctioned events at which employers try to cajole employees into accepting settlements!

The General Secretary expressed disappointment at the turn out for Tuesday’s lobby of Parliament – whilst rightly congratulating those who attended for their efforts. I suggested that more could have been done – for example at Conference – to get members to the lobby, but this prompted a strong defence of the effectiveness of the work done to build the lobby from the Chair of the Policy Committee.

Dave Prentis said that we need to think through why we now struggle to fill the small hall at Central Hall whereas twenty years ago the Unions could fill the large hall (which is now what London Citizens do).

UNISON NEC Committee membership

Here, for those interested in such matters are the Committee membership for the next two years on the UNISON NEC;

DEVELOPMENT & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE
Kate Ahrens
Mark Clifford
Louise Couling
Sue Forster
Peter Gaskin
Paul Glover
Moz Greenshields
Sue Highton (Chair)
John Jones
Glenn Kelly
Ann MacMillan Wood
Gill Malik
Bob Oram
Lynn Poulton
Jon Rogers
Kim Silver
Irene Stacey
Chris Tansley (Vice-Chair)

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE
Susan Brearley
Rob Curzon (provisional)
Mary Ferris
Helen Jenner
Angela Lynes (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Alison Shepherd (Chair)
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Linda Wilkinson

POLICY DEVELOPMENT & CAMPAIGNS COMMITTEE
James Anthony
Roger Bannister
Angela Bowen
Sarah Bradfield
Alison Brown
Jane Carolan (Chair)
Linda Coey
Emma Goodall
Paul Holmes
Graeme Horn
Dilys Jouvenat
Diana Leach
Colm Magee
Annette Mansell-Green
John McDermott
June Nelson
Helen Rose
Samantha Selon
Eleanor Smith
Fiona Smith
Sian Stockham
Paul Thompson
Jean Thorpe
Steve Warwick (Vice-Chair)


SERVICES TO MEMBERS COMMITTEE
Sarah Barwick
Jim Burnett
Lesley Discombe
Bernie Gallagher
Gerry Gallagher (Chair)
Paul Harper
Mike Hayes
Maureen Le Marinel
Stephen Mead
Jennifer Mortimer
Norma Stephenson (Vice-Chair)
Mike Tucker

STAFFING COMMITTEE
Angela Bowen
Mark Clifford
Mary Ferris
Sue Forster (Vice-Chair)
Sue Highton
Dilys Jouvenat
Angela Lynes
Bob Oram (Chair)
Lynn Poulton
Eleanor Smith
Irene Stacey
Chris Tansley

FINANCE & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Jane Carolan
Linda Coey (Vice-Chair)
Peter Gaskin
Paul Glover
Moz Greenshields
Mike Hayes (Chair)
John Jones
Diana Leach
Ann MacMillan Wood
Colm Magee
Stephen Mead
Jessie Russel
Fiona Smith
Sofi Taylor
Mike Tucker

INDUSTRIAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Sarah Barwick
Susan Brearley
Louise Couling
Emma Goodall
Moz Greenshields
Diana Leach
Angela Lynes (Chair)
Ann Macmillan Wood
Annette Mansell-Green
Stephen Mead (Vice-Chair)
Kevin Naylor
Jessie Russel
Samantha Selon
Fiona Smith
Irene Stacey
Norma Stephenson
Sian Stockham
Linda Sweet
Sofi Taylor
Jean Thorpe
Roger Bannister
Jim Burnett
Mike Hayes
Colm Magee
Bob Oram

BLACK MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE
Mark Clifford
June Nelson
Samantha Selon
Sofi Taylor

NATIONAL STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Louise Couling
Dilys Jouvenat
Graeme Horn

Managers In Partnership Board
Bob Oram
Eleanor Smith
Norma Stephenson

PENSIONS TRUSTEES
Sue Forster
Colm Magee
June Nelson

UIA BOARD
Gerry Gallagher
Mike Hayes
Alison Shepherd

WELFARE BOARD
Angela Bowen
Louise Couling
Gerry Gallagher
Sue Highton
Maureen Le Marinel
Fiona Smith
Dilys Jouvenat
Samantha Selon

DISABLED MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE
Paul Harper
Helen Rose
Kim Silver

WOMEN’S COMMITTEE
Lesley Discombe
Helen Jenner
Jean Thorpe

HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE
Roger Bannister
Maureen le Marinel
Paul Thompson

RETIRED MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE
Sarah Barwick
Sarah Bradfield
Linda Wilkinson


Once again my NEC colleagues have kindly refrained from overburdening me with Committee membership. We await the outcome of elections to the General Political Fund and Labour Link Committees (but not with great excitement).

I shall post a full report from this NEC meeting (which is underway) shortly but can report that our new President distinguished herself as a forthright Chair by introducing the exciting innovation of calling a vote in advance of a debate. The majority of the NEC were quite happy not to have a debate about the composition of the Committees and voted to endorse the above without any detailed consideration.

John McDermott thinks I should tell you all how much fun it is to be in the NEC Members Room at Mabledon Place but I am not going to as he is only on one Committee and his views cannot therefore be very important.

Equal Pay lobby of Parliament

Something of the order of 250 trade unionists (mostly UNISON members) are rallying at Central Hall Westminster as part of today’s lobby of Parliament. Jean Geldart has introduced the meeting by reading from the briefing notes provided to Labour MPs (which amount to saying that the problems of implementing Equal Pay in local government are not problems for Central Government).

Heather Wakefield, UNISON Head of Local Government, is speaking first. .She says we still have a gender pay gap the size of the Grand Canyon. We need the Government to provide funding to enable local authorities to fill the gender pay gap in order to pay women workers the money they are owed. Heather wants the Government to put their money where their mouth is and wake up and smell the coffee (at the same time?)

Apparently Equal Pay was written into the Treaty of Versailles in 1919! You live and learn eh?

Update at 1pm. Heather Wakefield has given us quite a wide ranging history of the past hundred years of struggle for Equal Pay. The former national negotiating machinery introduced equal pay for like work in the 1950s apparently.

Heather has just thanked Barbara Castle for the 1970 Equal Pay act. I must say I thought that the Ford sewing machinists had something to do with it as well? The role of women workers in struggle to achieve equal pay needs to be emphasised a little more than a simple chronology of past commitments.

Further update.

Diana Holland from UNITE’s TGWU section is bringing greetings of solidarity to the rally. She is stressing the importance of unity between the trade unions, and with the local authority employers, in order to press for funding to achieve equal pay without pay cuts and attacks on conditions of service. Diana believes that the Government is committed to equal pay and to filling the gender pay gap. (Also the tooth fairy?)

Further update (the second)

A little excitement as Jean Geldart has had to silence a heckler. Diana Holland says that MPs have to realise that this issue will not go away. She also says, to some considerable applause, that we can’t defend pay structures which contravene the Equal Pay Act. (I don’t think many people really want to do that. I think that there is an issue about protecting losers from the implementation of a new pay structure though – perhaps that is the concern of a few people who have just angrily left the meeting).

We are now moving on to hear Catherine Rake from the Fawcett Society.

Our speaker says that it is a disgrace that after ten years of a Labour Government we have the largest gender pay gap in Europe, which will take eighty years to close at the current rate of change for full time workers. This direct attack upon the failings of the Government distinguishes this contribution from the last and is well received.

Only 20% of MPs are women, which may be part of the reason why women’s issues receive a low priority.

The Tory Party are organising an Equal Pay day shortly (!) An opportunistic move of course, but an indication of the political dangers to the Government of failing to fund filling the gender pay gap. (The briefing note to MPs is disgraceful in refusing to accept responsibility for this problem).

We are now moving on to the practical arrangements for the lobby. I’ll have to chase my local MP so will stop blogging.

Let's hope the Government listens to us - but let's also start thinking about a political response if they don't...

One Wales - why not here?

I’ve always had the feeling that I shouldn’t switch off when we debate devolution within UNISON just because London governance arrangements are so frequently ignored.

Looking at the One Wales deal having read the leader in today’s Morning Star I realise I should pay more attention. Within the limits of the authority of the Welsh Assembly, the full detail of the agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru contains some good points.

“We firmly reject the privatisation of NHS services or the organisation of such services on market models. We will guarantee public ownership, public funding and public control of this vital public service.”

“We will move purposefully to end the internal market.”

“We will eliminate the use of private sector hospitals by the NHS in Wales by 2011.”

It’s not a full-blooded socialist programme for the twenty first century (although one is available…) – but it is a positive improvement on the policies of the Westminster Government. Is the reason for the greater success of the trade unions in influencing the devolved administrations due to deep rooted differences in the polity or is there something the unions are getting wrong at a UK wide level?

I must remember to exempt Wales and Scotland from some of the criticism of the general weakness of UNISON Labour Link at a UK level…

Hanover Day

I don’t often blog about my Labour Party activities (and when I do I don’t use UNISON resources to do so because of the implications of Rule J)(a comment for those Rule Book junkies out there…!) However, Labour Party activism ought to go alongside union activism since we want to change the world and not just the workplace.

I had a really good time today at Hanover Day in Brighton on a Labour Party stall with candidate Nancy Platts who is far and away the best person to be the next Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion (which has to have the best name of any Parliamentary constituency – how many others are named for a Regency folly of gargantuan proportions???)

Anyway we comprehensively outclassed our main local political opponents by running a stall which had both politics and a sense of humour – we need to reclaim the Labour Party locally and nationally for Labour Party policies (as opposed to the policies of privatisation favoured by one G Brown…)

Then we could maybe win a fourth term and do good things with it...

Or am I just an incurable optimist...

Getting support for UNISON policy in Parliament

Good to see up to date reporting of Tuesday’s lobby of Parliament (for funding for equal pay in local government) on the UNISON website.

You can check out whether your MP has signed Early Day Motion 1775 supporting the lobby.

Cross referencing supporters of the EDM thus far with the UNISON group of MPs shows that so far 12 of the Labour MPs in the UNISON group are among the 37 Labour signatories of the EDM (there are also 3 Tories, 3 Liberals, 2 Unionists and 1 from the SDLP).

There are 61 MPs listed in the UNISON group and, even allowing for the fact that ministers can’t sign EDMs there is obviously a lot more work to do to get even “our own” MPs supporting this vital priority for our Union. I hope that the National Labour Link Forum, meeting now in Manchester will have been giving some thought to how to raise the game of UNISON’s Labour Party work, which is not well regarded.

Unite the fights

So we have decided to hold off on a strike ballot in health because Alan Johnson is going to talk to us about pay.

Let’s hope he doesn’t say what he said to the teachers…

2.5% is not enough, whether it is paid all at once or staged. It’s not enough for health workers and it’s not enough for local government workers.

I’m sorry not to be able to be at the shop stewards conference tomorrow, and hope that it goes well, and that rank and file activists discuss how we coordinate the fight for fair pay across our movement. I hope that the conference adopts the very sensible statement put together by the organisers.

The shop stewards conference tomorrow will offer a lot more positive guidance than any other meetings going on at the moment…

Or we could live in dreamland and put our faith in Gordon Brown…

Good luck to Fremantle strikers

Good luck to all the workers taking strike action against cowboy employer Fremantle in North London! A 24 hour strike from noon yesterday is a major new development in the fight by the workers against attacks upon their pay and conditions.

Check out details of the dispute at the Barnet branch blog.

You can sign the online petition!

Also find out if your MP is one of the 50 who have signed the Early Day Motion in support of the workers.

Good luck comrades!

Update on Friday evening – I am very pleased to see the dispute getting coverage on the UNISON website!

Not quite live blogging at the Regional Local Government Executive

Not quite live blogging here but I’m in a coffee break at the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Executive.

I think I can safely say that this is the only place on the internet where you can read reports of this august body as its meeting takes place…

We have looked at recruitment statistics, and thanked our Chair, David Eggmore for working out some percentages. Overall recruitment this year is disappointing but some branches are doing very well and we have agreed to look in more detail at success stories, and also at cases where recruitment is particularly poor.

We also considered a report back from Local Government Conference and instructed our representative on the Standing Orders Committee for that Conference, Malcolm Campbell about our concerns. It was absurd that the Conference could not debate pensions (and for those who believe that Regional Local Government Committees may not move Emergency Motions to Service Group Conference I would invite you to consider Rule P1.3.5 (and the punctuation in particular!)

There are also concerns at the inconsistent approach adopted to Rule P1.3.6 and to the increasingly restrictive approach of all our Standing Orders Committees who no longer seem primarily to exist to facilitate debate and discussion – perhaps a Rule Amendment will be required.

Immediately before the coffee break we considered the consultation on the pay dispute – the deadline for branches to communicate members’ views to the Region is 26 July and most branches appear to be planning to hold consultative ballots.

Update just after noon - we are back in session and debating pensions. Myself, Glenn Kelly and Malcolm Campbell have all just expressed the view that branches must be permitted to act upon branch decisions to recommend a "no" vote in contradiction to the national recommendation. The Chair has agreed that branches are entitled to make their own recommendations and that there is no need to seek further clarification. It has been agreed not to seek further clarification and to accept that branches may make their own recommendations.

Another update a few minutes later - we are moving on to discuss pay and grading reviews so I shall stop live blogging in case I inadvertantly say something about Equal Pay without adequate forethought. Anyway I need to recharge my batteries...

What are you doing next Tuesday?

I’m pleased to see next week’s lobby of Parliament headlining on the UNISON website. You can even click on a link to watch a video of the Head of Local Government…!

I must admit I am struggling to mobilise members for the lobby at the moment (London branches are historically poor at lobbying Parliament because we don’t have to do so much work arranging transport etc. and tend to leave it all to the last minute).

A bit more publicity about the lobby earlier would have helped (that is the way to build a really big lobby of Parliament).

Still, better late than never! The key problem underlying the slow implementation of pay and grading reviews in local government and the consequent litigation is the consistent refusal of the Government to fund filling the gender pay gap.

I remember hearing Gordon Brown at the TUC in 2005 saying; “Our aim: to move to ending once and for all the gender pay gap.” This was in the context of the TUC in 2004 having agreed a proposal from UNISON calling for “full funding to tackle the gender pay gap across the economy, in particular the public sector.” Is Gordon Brown really listening on this???

Tuesday’s lobby of Parliament is therefore certainly not premature. I’ll have another go at encouraging attendance from my own branch and look forward to seeing you all there next week!

LGPS - yes or no?

UNISON is urging members to vote “yes” to approve the new look Local Government Pension Scheme. This recommendation comes from the Service Group Liaison Committee. This is what the Local Government Conference thinks of that Committee.

“We believe that coordination of action in relation to the LGPS across Service Groups and between different trade unions has recently been inadequate. In particular, we express our lack of confidence in the Service Group Liaison Committee as presently constituted as an effective forum to coordinate the defence of the interests of our members.”

I shall vote “no” because I don’t think we have achieved the objectives we set for ourselves when we took strike action last March. As Dave Prentis put it;

“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”

I expect that members will accept the recommendation of the Service Group Liaison Committee by a large majority, but branches must be free to make their own recommendations to members. I have heard it suggested that we may not do so, but know of no basis in Rule for such a daft exercise in control freakery…

Solidarity forever - support the postal workers!

The public sector pay fight will step up this week with postal workers in the CWU commencing industrial action as the employer fails to make an improved offer in spite of the best efforts of Union negotiators – good luck comrades!

If you’ve ever been on strike and picketing you will have had a boost when a postal worker refused to cross your picket line – now it’s our turn to show some support and return the favour. Let’s all try to support CWU picket lines on Friday.

And if you’ve never been on strike before now would be a very good time to start! This year we need to work towards unity and the largest possible strike action by public sector workers in particular if we are to reverse the pay cut policies of Gordon Brown.

This Government has in mind an onslaught on our movement in alliance with our enemies and the time for misplaced faith in our new Prime Minister is very long past. Now is the time to organise for action. We can start by supporting the postal workers this Friday.

The trade union movement is approaching a crossroads, we can choose to continue the strategy of quiet influence of decision makers which has delivered so much (not) or we can take a turn to building rank and file strength to fight for the interests of our members with neither fear nor favour.

I bet you can guess what I think…

Less than a fortnight to go...

All UNISON branches and activists should try to get along to the lobby of Parliament to call for adequate funding for pay reviews in local government, which starts at noon on Tuesday 10 July at Central Hall Westminster.

I’ve just posted a summary of the details with links to the relevant documents on the UNISON website on the Lambeth branch blog.

The Loneliness of the long distance Branch Secretary...

I know I shouldn’t be blogging as I said I should be doing something else, but I have had one of those days which lay union activists will be all to familiar with and I need to say something about it.

I seem to have spent all day doing ultimately pointless things to remedy other people’s errors and all I have achieved in the end is to stop things getting any worse for a few individuals.

Why is it that employers so often find it impossible to abide by the procedures we agree with them? Why can’t one part of a large public service organisation let another part know what it is doing to an employee?

These are questions which my UNISON branch will be taking up with our main employers.

Another problem which I think we need to face up to concerns the UNISON Representation Guide. This is a well-intentioned document but it embodies an earlier NEC decision to prevent lay activists (and paid officials) from representing our members at employment tribunals in the name of the Union.

We now have to fill in a CASE Form to request legal representation and these are filtered through Regional officials before reaching our lawyers who then decide if a case has sufficient merit to be supported, in which case the member gets a solicitor and a barrister (just like the employer).

One problem with this approach is that we don’t take marginal cases and will never, this way, set new precedents of value to workers in general. However, I do appreciate that the Union needed to limit the premia on our professional indemnity insurance (since members don’t pay their subs in order to enrich the insurance industry or pay out in compensation) and that this approach has delivered on that objective.

However – and this is a second problem – delays in processing CASE Forms can mean that members have to be advised to submit their own tribunal applications pending a decision from the lawyers and in the mean time branch officials have to advise the member on correspondence in connection with a case which UNISON has not yet agreed to take.

This and other problems with the current approach make me think that we need to consider a motion to our autumn Regional Council to kick off a debate about this question. Just as we accredit new representatives in order that they shall qualify as reps for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1999 why can’t we accredit lay and full time officers, through appropriate training, to take tribunal cases once more?

We cannot go back to the approach of lodging tribunals first and asking questions afterwards, as the chances of having costs awarded against claimants are unfortunately much higher than they were in the 1990s. However at present it seems to me that it is just too difficult to use the tool of a tribunal application to advance the interests of our members.

Right, I’ve got that off my chest. Thankyou for your time and I’ll stop blogging now!

How can the Unions respond to Brown?

Apologies dear readers if this blog isn’t updated as regularly as I would like over the next week, but not only is the first week back after Conference always hectic, but I have to cram frantically for an exam.

I can’t say I am shocked that Gordon Brown wants to dilute the influence of the trade unions within the Labour Party machinery – after all he flirted with the idea of Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet. The Blair project was always about securing the extinction of Labour as a left-of-centre social democratic party rooted in the working class movement. Union leaders can continue to ignore this but that won't make it go away.

The implications of this direction of travel were analysed quite well I thought in a “Unity in UNISON” bulletin handed out by supporters of the Communist Party of Britain at UNISON Conference, which called on the big unions to affiliate to the Labour Representation Committee, and for the unions to stop supporting MPs who consistently vote against key union policies.

I know that there are many in our Union with a respect for the Communist Party based upon its long tradition in our movement. They need to be prepared to engage in a dialogue with others on the left if we are to find a way out of the present political impasse and respond creatively to the crisis of political representation of the working class.

First personal report to London UNISON branches from the new NEC

What follows is my first personal report from the 2007/09 NEC which I have just circulated to London UNISON branches.

First of all I would like to thank all those UNISON branches who nominated me to continue to serve on our National Executive Council and all those UNISON members who voted for me. I shall continue to report back from meetings of the NEC and if anyone wants to keep up to date with my reports they can do so by visiting my blog at any time. (A blog is just a personal website that is easy to update for anyone who doesn’t know).

Like many other UNISON activists I have spent the last week at UNISON Conference. I don’t intend to circulate a full report of the Conference because that is the job of your branch delegates – but I will draw attention to one or two really important issues which branches need to be thinking about.

The main issue of the week was, without doubt, public sector pay – in relation to which we have agreed to seek a united front with other public service unions in order to take on the Government.

In relation to local government pay there is now a formal consultation over pay in which members are recommended to reject the employers offer of 2% (or possibly 2.5%) since both are crap (that’s a technical term used by union negotiators to describe pay offers falling a long way short of the rate of inflation so I’m not being rude…) Further details of the pay consultation process are available online here and the order form for the leaflet is available here. It is always worth browsing the online catalogue to see what else is available.

In the health service we are also gearing up for a ballot over pay. We have to hope for united action between health and local government and it was made pretty clear to me at Conference that members in health don’t want 2.5% (which is a pay cut in real terms) even if it is paid all at once. (Because 2.5% is less than this…)

While persuading our members to be prepared to take strike action for fair pay, we also need to be mobilising now for two important events backed by UNISON.

The first is the lobby of parliament on local government funding on 10 July, to which the new NEC of our Union have agreed to go. Links to all the guidance documents for this lobby are on the local government section of the UNISON website. Although called primarily around the need for funding for equal pay and single status this is a lobby about local government funding and is therefore deeply relevant to our pay campaign in local government – it is also relevant to members across all service groups that local government should be adequately funded and I hope that branches in other service groups will consider supporting the lobby, just as we tried to get attendance from other service groups for the NHS lobby last year.

The second event coming up is the National Demonstration in defence of the National Health Service, called for by this year’s UNISON Health Conference. This is now due to take place on 13 October. Again, although a circular has gone out first of all to health branches this is not just an issue for health workers, and all UNISON branches should be making arrangements to attend.

I therefore hope to see you (at least) on 10 July and 13 October. If in the mean time you would like a report from an NEC member to a Branch or Branch Committee meeting that contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk or on 07957505571 (and give me a bit of notice please!)

Finally, the NEC met for the first time on 22 July and elected Norma Stephenson as President and Sue Highton and Gerry Gallagher as Vice Presidents. I voted for Jessie Russel and Roger Bannister for Vice President and would be happy to explain my reasons to any London UNISON branch or member.

Union influence and the Deputy leadership campaign (not)

What are we to make of the fact that the winner of the contest for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was the one candidate with no trade union nominations? I commented a while ago about the way in which the dispersal of union nominations between different candidates seemed to undermine union influence.

Whilst some comfort can probably be taken from the detailed results which show that Jon Cruddas, who emerged as a left candidate, was the last to be eliminated and that he topped the poll for first preferences (whereas Hazel Blears deservedly won the wooden spoon and was first to be eliminated), it is difficult to get too worked up about this contest, it is not the contest we should have had with the candidate we should have had.

We now need to take on this “new” New Labour Government over public sector pay – I very much doubt that the Deputy Leadership election has been particularly relevant to this question which is of central importance to our members.

Update – I have just read this excellent analysis of the results from a friend and comrade.

UNISON NEC agrees to lobby Parliament

At the first meeting of the 2007/09 UNISON NEC, Norma Stephenson was elected President with Sue Highton and Gerry Gallagher as her Vice Presidents. The only other decision taken by the NEC was to agree, with the support of the newly elected President, with a suggestion that I made that the NEC should collectively attend the lobby of Parliament on 10 July.

All UNISON members – indeed everyone who cares about the future of our public services – should support the lobby of Parliament. On the UNISON website you can access a briefing note together with guidance on how to lobby your MP and details of the practical arrangements for the day.

As we move towards strike action over pay the question of funding for local government is vitally important and we need to take our arguments directly to the Government, who stand behind our employers holding the purse strings.

Friday afternoon at UNISON Conference

I wrote this yesterday afternoon but couldn’t get online to post it…

It’s the Friday afternoon of Conference, and a hall full (well quite full) of tired delegates have less than an hour and a half in total to debate reprioritised motions. The top of the reprioritisation ballot was Motion 21 from Kensington and Chelsea dealing with the employers’ management of sickness absence.

This shows our Conference delegates demonstrating how the priorities of the rank and file are informed by our everyday experience in the branches – dealing with sickness cases is a massive part of the workload of our shop stewards and – thanks to Kensington and Chelsea branch, Conference has now agreed to instruct the National Executive Council to support branches and provide a national lead to campaign against reactionary sickness management policies.

The second priority is Motion 19 on violence against public service workers, moved by the Yorkshire and Humberside Region. It is essential that UNISON does all we can to protect all our members from violent and abusive behaviour. As I write, Roger Bannister, whom I intend later this afternoon to support to be Vice President of our Union, is speaking on behalf of the NEC. I shall also support Jessie Russel for Vice President. The only candidate for President is Norma Stephenson, and the other candidates for Vice President, who can expect to receive a majority of the votes, are Sue Highton and Gerry Gallagher.

With an hour left to go I should think that we are unlikely to get as far as the debate on Trident, which is a great shame (although of course UNISON has clear policy of opposition to Trident replacement anyway). I’ll blog tomorrow about the final debates of Conference and about the first meeting of the new National Executive Council.

For now I shall sign off…

(Update after the close of Conference – I was unduly pessimistic and we did reach the debate on Trident. As on so many questions we have adopted excellent progressive policy – if only we would fight for it in the Labour Party…
I wonder which member of the Labour Party NEC could help us with that?)

Rules debate at UNISON Conference

Out of sequence I know, but I thought I would blog a little about the Rules debate yesterday afternoon (Thursday).

Two particular debates stand out.

First, the NEC were proposing a rule amendment to change the name of the Additional Members Seats on the NEC to Black Members Seats, with effect from the next elections.

This faced some bizarre objections on the basis of arguments against having any reserved seats on the NEC – and had it not been for a spontaneous response from the floor of Conference to put the arguments in favour of the NEC position the Rule Amendment might well not have got the required two thirds majority.

An honourable mention should go to comrades from the London Regional Black Members Committee in particular who rushed to the front to defend the principles of self-organisation, alongside comrades both black and white who persuaded Conference to agree the change.

Another worthy Rule Amendment which narrowly failed to get the two thirds was a proposal from Croydon Branch to reduce from thirteen weeks to four weeks the period of time before which new members can gain legal assistance. When the NEC proposed this last year it was smashed, but some good work has been done and, on a card vote, the Rule Amendment did not fall far short of the two thirds majority.

Better luck next year Malcolm!

UNISON United at start of pay fight

I’ve returned to my sporadic attempts to blog from UNISON National Delegate Conference in order to report the news that Conference has just agreed unanimously a Composite Emergency Motion on Pay. The Composite was in the name of the National Executive Council and the Manchester Community and Mental Health branch and therefore reflected unanimity between the Union leadership and the rank and file left on the need for united action on public sector pay.

The motion calls for a campaign for fair pay, up to and including strike action; co-ordination of pay campaigns within UNISON; joint work with other public service unions to co-ordinate strikes, and work with user organisations and pressure groups.

Gordon Brown won’t do much for trade unionists – but he has helped to create the potential for the most impressive unity we have seen for many years. UNISON activists need to take the campaign back into our workplaces in order to win our members support for strike action. We also need to make links, organising local and Regional rallies in conjunction with our brothers and sisters in PCS, the NUT, CWU, GMB, UNITE and all other trade unions.

The first step is to support the postal workers on their picket lines – and organising speaking tours by the CWU in our workplaces.

There is a running official report from Conference on the website.

UNISON supports boycott call in debate on Palestine

As I begin to get up to date with where the Conference agenda has got to I shall note in passing that the Wednesday morning at Conference witnessed debates on organising and on the environment. This included the report from the National Executive Council on our union structures.

As I write we are in the international debates. The debate on Cuba was enlivened by one contribution from a delegate who described Cuba as a “dictatorship” and opposed a motion in solidarity with Cuba. The motion went on to be passed all but unanimously.

The debate on Palestine is considerably more controversial with strong views on both sides around the question of a boycott of Israel. Tony Greenstein from Brighton and Hove branch has just won thunderous applause for an impassioned speech in support of the motion from Wolverhampton which the National Executive Council are (rightly in my view) supporting. This is a wide ranging motion about solidarity with the Palestinians – however the focus of the debate is around the question of a boycott of Israel. The motion calls for an immediate arms embargo and expresses principled support for an economic, cultural, academic and sporting boycott.

Leftwing opponents of the boycott proposals appear to me to cling to a very abstract view of class politics, leading them to believe that there could be some unity, in current circumstances, between Israeli and Palestinian workers. Helen Jenner, speaking on behalf of the NEC has explained that UNISON policy is absolutely in favour of dialogue, but that we have to respond to the appalling way in which the Palestinian people are being treated. UNISON is not opposed to the Israeli state or the Israeli people but to the policies of the Israeli government. Boycotts are a tactic to be considered and employed as appropriate.

Speakers in support of the motion are generally speaking from experience of the situation in Palestine, whereas opponents are giving generally more abstract presentations of an argument about workers unity, with a subtext of warnings about anti-semitism (and some exaggeration of exactly what the motion is calling for). Caroline Bedale from Manchester Community Health has given a characteristically measured response to the exaggerations from opponents to the motion.

Calls for a boycott of Israeli goods and institutions is not an attack upon the Israeli people – it is a legitimate tactic to seek to influence the practice of the Israeli government in oppressing the Palestinian people. The Conference has just overwhelmingly supported Motion 53 including the tactic of a boycott.

Public Services Debate at UNISON Conference

The first day of UNISON Conference commenced with the usual opening formalities, an address from the President, a report from the Standing Orders Committee (which attracted a variety of challenges) and presentation of the Annual Report and Financial Reports.

As I am playing catch up at the moment (Wednesday afternoon) I shan’t dwell on every detail here. The main debate on Tuesday afternoon was on public services.

This was preceded by the annual speech of the General Secretary, Dave Prentis, who warned that the Labour Government were drinking in the last chance saloon. (Some delegates are of the view that the last chance saloon kicked them out a while ago and they are now in the bar of the Hotel Metropole where, providing you know someone staying there, you can go on drinking until dawn…)

For the first time in a number of years this speech also saw a pointed attack on some leftwingers in the Union – a minor feature of the speech but nevertheless a regrettable diversion from the main theme upon which we need to concentrate, which is how to apply more and better pressure upon the Labour Government.

The subsequent debate saw a high degree of unity around calls for the defence of public services – and also around support in particular for a campaign to defend the National Health Service, including a demonstration which will take place on 13 October.

There was a tactical difference between the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority branch and Deputy General Secretary, Keith Sonnet, about whether or not we should call for a national demonstration in defence of public services. This went to a card vote, and (against my somewhat pessimistic expectations) was carried.

I was very pleased with this result for two reasons.

First, I was very pleased to be at a Public Services Not Private Profit fringe meeting on Tuesday evening, where almost 250 delegates heard John McDonnell MP talk about the successes of this vital joint union campaign, which organised the largest and most vibrant of last year’s trade union lobbies of Parliament.

At that meeting we heard from speakers officially representing other trade unions who encouraged us to take confidence in the willingness of trade union members to fight to defend public services – and when we got the result of the card vote we found that the majority of delegates at UNISON Conference agreed with the perspective of the Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign.

The second reason why I was happy with the result of the card vote, is that it gives hope that UNISON will shift our position at the TUC. When compositing motions for debate at the Annual Congress of the TUC it has been PCS who have been pushing for a national demonstration, and UNISON has been resisting this. Now that UNISON Conference has arrived at the same view as that taken some time ago by PCS, I hope that our TUC delegation, of which I hope to be a member, will stand by our Conference policy and step up our campaign in defence of public services.

I also hope that UNISON will join with the many trade unions already organising under the banner of Public Services Not Private Profit.

an apology!

An apology to the Oxford reader who complained to me earlier today that I had not updated this blog since Sunday.

In spite of my best intentions I have not found the time to blog properly yet this week. However, now that I am safely tucked away on the platform, where my NEC colleagues kindly ensure that I am not overworked, by not asking me to speak, I can try to catch up.

Local Government Conference did in the end vote down in the second card vote the position which it had adopted in the first card vote (presumably because the large North Western city branch got the card vote right second time around…)

This meant that we were left without a position on pay – a predicament from which we were rescued by an Emergency Motion from the Tower Hamlets branch which commits the Union to a campaign to encourage members to reject the pay offer in the consultative ballot and to use the consultation exercise to build up to an official strike ballot.

Therefore, by the end of local government Conference we had arrived in a strong position, with a united and credible strategy to move forward, bringing together the floor of Conference and platform, who were well aware that almost half the Conference were confident already to move ahead with an immediate strike ballot.

The underlying dissatisfaction with the recent leadership of industrial disputes at national level found expression in the outcome of the third card vote, which led to Conference condemning the way in which our negotiating objectives in the LGPS dispute had shifted from full to partial protection of the rights of current scheme members.

Branches now need to campaign amongst the membership to win support for the strike action which we will have to take – and to attend and support the lobby of Parliament called by the Service Group Executive for 10 July!

Conference kicks off with card vote jamboree

The first day of UNISON’s local government Conference was kicked off by Khi Rafe, from the Lambeth branch, but representing National Black Members Committee, moving the first of a raft of Equalities motions. These motions were rightly uncontroversial in the main but committed the Union to challenge the employers who are failing to comply with their statutory duties.

Debates in the afternoon were more controversial and produced three card votes, the results of two of which are awaited. The first card vote narrowly agreed an amendment to commence an immediate strike ballot on local government pay against the opposition of the Service Group Executive (SGE).

The SGE, perhaps having heard the disturbing rumour that a large city branch in the North West who can be relied upon to support the SGE had failed to sign their voting card then called on Conference to vote down the substantive Composite motion – this led to a second card vote, the result of which will be announced tomorrow.

A third card vote arose from an amendment critical of the conduct of the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme. I’ll post a more considered report of Local Government Conference whilst I am stuck on the top table at National Delegate Conference.

I’ll make the most of being a delegate at Local Government Conference, since my NEC colleagues have inexplicably neglected to ask me to speak at National Delegate Conference…

I particularly enjoyed being able to explain the limitations of the accountability of the Service Group Liaison Committee in moving Motion 8 and shall spend the evening wondering what to say in a right of reply when someone gets up to defend the Service Group Liaison Committee.

What a shame it would be if absolutely no one does...

UNISON claims pensions compromise as victory

The official position is as follows;

“Today, Phil Woolas has made a statement to the House of Commons announcing a twelve week statutory consultation on proposals to amend the October 2006 LGPS Regulations to provide full rather than tapered protection to 2020. He follows this by stating that the cost of extending the protection will have to be offset by savings in the scheme. UNISON has long maintained that the extended protection is affordable. We will continue our campaign through the statutory consultation to address this point.

This announcement is a major breakthrough and a long held objective of both UNISON’s and the wider LGPS Trade Union Side, the constant lobbying and pressure has paid off.

UNISON’s Consultation Ballot Begins
The Service Group Liaison Committee / Strike Committee meeting held on14 June 2007 agreed to initiate a consultation ballot on the new LGPS immediately. In light of the Woolas statement the consultation will be on the basis of recommending the package to members.

The ballot covers nearly a million UNISON members, and will be sent to individual’s home addresses. Ballot materials are being prepared and will be issued to members in early July direct with a closing date for the ballot being 23 July 2007.

We want to ensure a maximum turn out in the ballot and branches will need to alert members that the ballot is coming. We are preparing posters for branches to use during the ballot period.

Branches must use this opportunity to recruit non members and let them know the success of our union campaign and how we achieved the new LGPS package, remind them to join the union and be part of something that improves their working and retired lives!”

Another view would be that we went on strike against reductions in pension benefits and not simply to ensure that only some of us would experience reductions in our pension benefits.

Other public service pension schemes agreed changes on the basis of protecting the rights of existing scheme members. UNISON didn’t ask the other Unions to hold off on signing up to the offer from Alan Johnson in October 2005 to see if it could be extended to local government so we can’t blame anyone but ourselves for the fact that local government workers got a worse deal.

As I have said on this blog with boring regularity, I get that we don’t always win industrial disputes in the sense of getting everything we want. That’s fair enough. You do your best and you take the best you can get. That is the every day life of a trade union activist.

I hope I have never, at branch level, tried to dress up a compromise as an unalloyed victory, yet I am afraid that that is exactly what UNISON officials now appear to be doing.

We didn’t lose the pensions dispute. We won real concessions through taking strike action. Had we taken more strike action we would have won more concessions.

Neither however did we win. I don’t think it is an acceptable or sensible basis to try to build the Union by pretending that compromises are victories. Our members and potential members are not stupid and will not appreciate a less than honest approach.

I shall vote to reject this proposal because I agree with what our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said in March last year;

"Strike action is the only option left to local government workers to demonstrate the burning resentment and anger they feel over the government and employers taking away their pension rights – when those same rights have been given to every other public-sector pension scheme. Why should they put up with this discrimination?”

How can we claim now as a victory a settlement which falls so far short of what we fought for last year?

Conference time again!

Well, it is that fabulous (nay magical) time of year – UNISON Conference is upon us. With a reactionary New Labour Government attacking our jobs, our public services and our pay at the same time as our Labour Party is changing its leadership in an election in which we could have a massive voice the coming week could be a brilliant opportunity to build and to raise the profile of what could so easily be the best trade union in the country (if not the world…)

Could be…

Unfortunately Conference will not get to debate a choice between different strategies.

There is a coherent strategy in the movement. It is based upon an acceptance that the Government’s attacks upon our members’ jobs and pay are part and parcel of the attack upon public services which is central to New Labour politics. Not only are these attacks united in their origins, our members experience them at the same time, and they all contribute to the anger which does exist, and from which we could mobilise the action necessary to turn the tide.

However, UNISON’s structures and strategies do not encourage us to make these links. We fight on pay, sector by sector. We don’t link the fight on pay to the fight against privatisation, which is hampered by illusions that Gordon Brown will listen to us. The structure of employment itself in our two largest service groups, together with our acquiescence in the anti-union laws, makes it almost impossible for us to even conceive of a national fight against job cuts.

Therefore those of us who want a realistic and effective response to a hostile reactionary Government will have our work cut out in the coming week. Attempts to even debate UNISON support for an effective joint union response to privatisation have been stifled and you could bet the expenses of the entire National Executive Council that valiant efforts by branches to get our main National Delegate Conference to discuss the Government’s public sector pay cut policy will face obstruction.

There is a glaring contradiction between the interests of our members – in fair pay, secure jobs and public services – and support for Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson. However, whilst the CWU were able to overturn the decision of their Executive in relation to the Labour Party elections, UNISON Conference has no such power.

Our Union needs to change direction. Our Conference will demonstrate that need, but we will be lucky if it does more than that. Beyond Conference, activists need to build unity with other public service unions in particular in order to build the coming fight against the Brown Government.