UNISON NEC agrees policy for Conference

I’ll be circulating a full personal report to London UNISON branches from today’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) (and yesterday’s meeting of the Development and Organisation Committee) – in addition to the official report.

The main item of business for this meeting was UNISON National Delegate Conference. The NEC therefore agreed its policy on most of the motions (and rule amendments) which made it past the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) and on to the agenda.

(Incidentally – since there are some sensitive souls in our trade union – I ought to point out that, by expressing considered disagreement with decisions of the SOC I am not attacking the SOC or its members, just as if I express dissent from decisions of the majority of my NEC colleagues this does not amount to an attack upon them).

If any London UNISON branch (or member) wants details on the NEC policies on any particular Conference motion please get in touch – I will just touch on one or two items here.

The NEC has agreed to submit an amendment to Motion 11 on the Two Tier Workforce from Somerset County (which I think we should be aiming to debate at Conference) – I objected to various parts of the NEC amendment which appeared to me to water down the motion but the NEC agreed to press ahead. Should the motion be prioritised it will be up to Conference to decide whether to ask the NEC to do some work or to call upon the Government to do it instead…

I also objected (equally fruitlessly I fear) to the detail of an NEC amendment to Motion 16 on Campaigning on Pay from the Islington branch which seeks to delete reference to a national demonstration in favour of support for action called by the TUC and also deletes reference to inviting speakers from other unions (on the grounds – I was told – that we need to be meeting with our own members first of all). For those who want to know why we should counterpose organising meetings of our own members and inviting speakers from other trade unions you’ll have to ask someone else, as I received no coherent explanation for the policy position then adopted by the NEC.

I also took issue unsuccessfully with the decision of the Policy Committee to oppose Motion 37 from York City on Housing – which I fear that the NEC will indeed oppose at Conference because the motion opposes Local Housing Companies which, our Policy Committee felt “should not be ruled out at this early stage” – I was disappointed with this decision which I think reflects a lack of confidence in our position of support for public ownership and public sector housing provision. Perhaps some branches will think of amendments to strengthen the NEC motion on this topic – number 35 – in order to reaffirm UNISON’s policies.

In line with the precedent set last year, the NEC are proposing an amendment which radically redirects Motion 63 from the Bromley branch, the entertainingly (if somewhat misleadingly) titled “New Labour: What Do We Get for Our Money?” The amendment (put before us by the less entertainingly titled “Objective Three Scrutiny Group”) brings in reference to the Hayden Phillips Review of Party funding which is missing from the motion, but also suggests that all that might be wrong with the operation of our political funds are their “operations and functional processes” – whereas I think our problem is the political timidity which led to our nominating Gordon Brown for Labour Party Leader.

York City branch are also the movers of Motion 81 on Migrant workers which has attracted an NEC amendment which is largely sensible but which, to my regret, deletes reaffirmation of UNISON Conference policy in favour of an amnesty for illegal migrants. I would accept that it is better to use the preferred phrase “regularisation” rather than the word “amnesty” which we agreed at our Conference if someone could show me that this was getting us anywhere in terms of influencing the Government...

Debate on the NEC’s position on Motion 115 on the Branch Directory was somewhat curtailed by the announcement that a new Branch Directory will be with branches shortly. Some NEC members genuinely seem to believe that it is inappropriate for UNISON branches to communicate directly with each other (which is not the main reason for having the Branch Directory but is a good use of it). I can only think that this is because they confuse a lay led trade union with some other organisation which discouraged such internal communication!

The NEC also agreed its position on Rule Amendments all of which are much as you would expect. Those of us who contributed to discussion on the issue at the Development and Organisation Committee helped to avert NEC opposition to Rule Amendment 5 from the National Disabled Members Committee which would create a post of Branch Disabled Members Officer which should be held by a disabled member.

Overall the NEC positions are hardly unexpected on any of the motions or Rule Amendments and, for once, there was more controversy around the Annual Report (about which more shortly)…

The incredible importance of 0.3%...?

I am just preparing for today’s National Executive Council and am struck by the importance of that extra 0.3%.

Because 2.45% is bad.

Yet, we are told, 2.75% is good.

I can’t help noticing that one opinion is expressed by an elected body of lay representatives and the other isn’t.

Guess which is which…

Is 2.75% the key to happiness?

Just as I got round to remarking on the absence of a pay offer in health, what should come along this morning but a pay offer…

This is being spun as a good offer “highest in the public sector”.

Well the highest hill in the South Downs is the highest hill in the South Downs but that still doesn’t make it a mountain.

As set out on the UNISON website;

The proposed deal gives 2.75% in the first year.In year 2 it gives 2.54%. It also establishes for all NHS staff a new minimum wage of £6.77 an hour in that year, that is 18% higher than the statutory rate. Those on the lowest point will receive an increase of 5.7%.In the third year the proposed deal gives 2.5%. It includes a flat rate increase of £420 (worth 3.17% at the lowest point) for the bottom three grades.

Karen Jennings says that “we will be asking our executive to consider recommending this deal to members as a well-balanced package in the forthcoming consultation.”

I would have thought that that was a decision for the Service Group Executive (or indeed – since it meets next week, having regard to Rule D.3.4.2 – the Service Group Conference).

The first year of the deal falls well short of the rate of increase in the cost of living – and so is a pay cut in real terms. As to the subsequent years it is obviously impossible to know what will happen with price inflation, which could well fall if we enter a recession.

I guess we need to spend a little time looking at the details of this offer – and I will listen in particular to the views of my fellow NEC members who represent the Health Service Group when I see them later this week.

My initial view is that a three year deal which starts with a rise below the rate of price inflation is not one that we should be welcoming quite so enthusiastically…

Pay - delay is unhealthy

I’ve been complaining here about local government pay even since before we were offered less than two and a half per cent.

But health workers are, if anything, in an even worse position.

The local government employers may have made an offer too late – but at least it is an “offer” which we can reject – and least they have made it so we can decide how to respond.

Pay in the National Health Service is set following recommendations from the Pay Review Body and, although the settlement date is 1 April, as Service Group Executive member Nick Holden reports, there’s no sign of any recommendation.

Should the review body recommend an increase below inflation (that’s the Retail Price Index – RPI – real price inflation of course) there may well be a debate between those who think it is important to defend the “integrity” of the pay review process and those who think it is important that our members living standards should not be driven down.

That debate can’t easily start while no recommendation has even been made. I think members are more interested in the outcome, rather than the process, of settling pay increases – and that we could have an unprecedented opportunity for unity between health and local government workers.

We could be taking action in unison.

Will we?

A sad weekend

This has been a sad weekend for trade unionists. Saturday saw the untimely death of NUT General Secretary, Steve Sinnott just as his union is preparing for national strike action in opposition to continuing real terms pay cuts which threaten the future of the teaching profession and the education of our children.

Personally, I was also shocked to hear of the premature death of RMT activist and former Lambeth Labour Councillor, Greg Tucker. A heartfelt personal obituary is online here. I first knew Greg as a Councillor during one of the few genuinely leftwing Council administrations for which I have ever worked. I last recollect talking to him a while ago when he was helping initiate the National Shop Stewards Network. He had the sort of enduring commitment on which our movement depends in order to survive.

Trade unionism and socialist politics are lifetime commitments – and we can none of us know how long a lifetime is.

Local Government Pay - now what?

Now that we know that we have a final pay offer from the local government employers which is unacceptable we need to start thinking about what to do with it. Jean Geldart yesterday circulated a report to London branches as follows;

“A final offer was made yesterday.

It is 2.45% on all spinal points with effect from 1 April 2008, plus an additional £100 p.a. on Scp 4, 5 and 6 (this would be Inner London 2, 3 and 4). The same conditions apply as the last offer: that we 'seek to agree' the Green Book review by 31 December 2008 and that we 'seek to agree' the pay deals for 2009 and 2010 by 31 December 2008. Clearly this is a real pay cut and a disguised 3 year deal - without even knowing the figures for the next 2 years.

Unison's national committee (the NJC committee) will meet on 8th April to decide what to recommend to branches and there will then be the usual branch consultation, with branches asked to arrange meetings and a ballot so that votes can be aggregated nationally. The closing date for the consultation is likely to be early-mid May to allow for the school holiday period.

Both GMB and UNITE will be holding national meetings followed by branch consultation, on about the same sort of timetable. At yesterday's meeting the trade union side did not take a position on the offer, as the GMB National Officer said he was not in a position to be able to commit himself.

I would welcome any feedback on your branch's views before 8th (I realise this is only a couple of days). It seems to me that the NJC committee will have to make an assessment of what sort of industrial action is possible and will shift the employers in order to do a realistic consultation. For information, the Tower Hamlets branch committee today agreed to ask the NJC committee to reject the offer and campaign for action.”

I won’t dwell upon the possibility that there are those in our ranks who think that anything above 2% is some sort of victory and who think that we should give up on referring to the RPI – Retail Price Index and go along with the Government’s preference for the (lower) CPI – Consumer Price Index. Apart from the fact that such views are wildly misguided I don’t think they will feature openly and honestly in debates within the Union about strike action (of which as regular readers will be aware I am an advocate from time to time…)

The “anti” argument within the Union will focus instead upon whether the members have the “stomach” for the serious strike action necessary to win, which in turn leads to debate about a strategy for victory (implying we need some idea of what victory would look like) and to the question of how to create confidence in the Union.

Not having all (or even most) of the answers myself I thought I would start by drafting a motion for debate at our UNISON Branch Committee, upon which I would welcome comments. Here it is. What do you think?

"REJECT 2.45% - CAMPAIGN FOR ACTION

This Branch Committee calls upon UNISON’s National Joint Council (NJC) Committee to reject the employers’ final offer of 2.45% and to campaign for action to produce an improved pay offer.

We note that the pay offer is below the rate of inflation as measured by the Retail Price Index and is therefore an offer of a pay cut in real terms. We believe that national strike action will be needed to produce an improved pay offer, as it did in 1989 and 2002.

We also note that other public service trade unions are involved in action over pay. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) are taking strike action on Thursday 24 April. The University and College Union (UCU) are balloting further education lecturers for action on the same date. The National Executive of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) have called upon their Group Executives to take action on the same date where they are in dispute. We also note that the TUC have called for a lobby of Parliament on public service pay but note that this is not due to take place until 9 June.

We believe that strike action which can shift the employers will need to consist of more than a single day of action and call upon the NJC Committee to request that a strike ballot takes place as soon as possible, with a vigorous campaign to maximise both turnout and a “yes” vote. We also believe that the interests of UNISON members will best be served by coordinating our pay campaign with other public service trade unions, and will require both industrial action and political lobbying and campaigning.

We call upon the NJC Committee to consult Regional Local Government Committees on a strategy for strike action taking the following as a starting point;
· Sustained all out strike action commencing with at least two days of strike action;
· A national demonstration on the second day of strike action, which should be timetabled for maximum political effect;
· As much coordination as is possible with other public service trade unions in dispute with their employers and taking action.

We further call for the stepping up of political campaigning for fair pay for local government workers, as part of a general campaign against public sector pay restraint and call upon the NJC Committee and Service Group Executive (SGE) to;
Call for the TUC lobby of Parliament to be brought forward from 9 June to an earlier date;
Work with UNISON Labour Link to maximise Parliamentary support for our pay campaign;
Encourage branches and Regions to organise rallies, lobbies, demonstrations and publicity stunts jointly with other public service unions wherever possible, and to support events organised by the NUT and other striking unions on 24 April.

We resolve to submit this motion as an Emergency Motion to the Regional Local Government Committee."

More about Conference priorities

For those thinking about the question of prioritisation of UNISON Conference motions, here are a dozen interesting motions which may not attract the support in the prioritisation process which their importance warrants. This is my personal blog and these are my personal thoughts. There are many other important motions on the Conference agenda!

It may well make sense for branches and others who will have some say in the prioritisation process to await decisions from next week's NEC meeting, as there is always an argument in favour of prioritising motions which the NEC oppose (as non-prioritised motions will eventually be referred to the NEC).

These are not necessarily the most important motions on the agenda and certainly not the motions likely to head up the order of business – but all of them are worth a look…

Motion 11 Moving Beyond the Two Tier Workforce

An attempt to address the shortcomings of the various Codes intended to avoid the nightmare of the two tier (or multi-tier!) workforce born of the recent obsession of Governments with privatisation and staff transfer.

Motion 38 Defend Council Housing

With a mere 30 Labour MPs backing Council Housing in the Commons on Monday it is important that we reaffirm UNISON’s support for council housing. (Yes, that’s council housing, not social housing, not affordable housing, as laudable and lovely as these are – we need a policy to defend council housing).

Motion 47 Teaching Black History

Motions from the Black Members Committee have not attracted high priority on a couple of recent occasions. Although this motion should (I hope!) attract the support of the NEC we also need to make sure that it is debated by Conference.

Motion 61 Victimisation of Union Activists

A motion from Eileen Short’s branch moved at the first Conference since the attacks on Karen Reissman and Michael Gavan. Support for this motion ought not to be controversial, but it is vitally important.

Motion 62 Agency Workers

A straightforward motion about the rights of agency workers which rightly condemns the Government – but more importantly focuses upon a key area for union campaigning if we are to reverse the decline in our strength and bargaining power.

Motion 72 Don’t Attack Iran

A motion which does exactly what it says on the tin, which would put us in the front line of opposition to the next war the neocons in Washington want to fight (without being uncritical in our attitude to a reactionary anti-worker regime).

Motion 73 Human and Trade Union Rights in Saudi Arabia

Obviously I am biased as this is from the Lambeth branch, but I do think that the corrupt relationship between the Saudi dictatorship and our Government is something that ought to be discussed a bit more in our movement. No doubt amendments could improve this motion, but this is an international issue which has been too low on the agenda for too long.

Motion 81 Migrant Workers

Opposition to immigration is not the sole preserve of the far right. There are those within the trade union movement who don’t understand UNISON’s progressive policies, and if the project to recruit and organise migrant workers is to make headway we need to reaffirm and reinforce our policies.

Motion 90 Abortion Rights

Every few years we see a dishonest attack upon abortion rights from the anti-choice lobby. It’s time those who support the right to choose started trying to make the political weather and this motion is a useful starting point.

Motion 96 Gun and Knife Crime

There is no doubt that this issue, which has also attracted the attention of National Black Members Conference, is an issue for the trade union movement, and this motion makes some policy proposals which take the debate forward.

Motion 110 No Trident Replacement

UNISON has clear policy of opposition to nuclear weapons but – as with many issues on which the Labour Party leadership ignore the feelings of the movement – we have to be watchful to reaffirm our policy and keep it in the spotlight if we are to see effective campaigning.

Motion 112 Expenses Payments for Unison Members

Not a motion destined for popularity with my NEC colleagues I fear, but one which is right in principle in that it tries to establish that the expenses we pay for union activity bear some relationship to those we negotiate with employers.

2.45%? No Thanks!

Here is the bad – but hardly unexpected – news from the UNISON website;

“Local government employers returned to the negotiating table today with a pay offer that would leave the lowest paid workers less well off than supermarket staff.The rise being offered is 2.45%, with £100 extra for those on the bottom three points on the pay scale – up on the initial 2.2% rejected by trade unions but still branded “hugely disappointing” by UNISON national secretary Heather Wakefield.”

The key point is surely that this offer falls well below the rate of increase of the Retail Price Index. Therefore if we cannot improve upon it we will face a further reduction in our standard of living.

The evidence of the past is that national strike action by local government workers can improve our pay relative to other sectors of the economy. This year we have an unprecedented opportunity for unity with other public service workers.

Decent pay for public service workers could be key to a progressive economic policy to respond to the threat of recession by boosting purchasing power in the economy.

However, as there is no indication that the Government are thinking along these lines we need a robust political and industrial campaign to defend the interests of our members.

We need a strike ballot to commence very urgently (if we have to have a consultative ballot first to comply with Service Group Conference policy then that should start before the end of next week and conclude before the end of the month – I think the NJC Committee and SGE need to think long and hard about whether, in the light of last year’s result, we really need a consultative ballot at all).

We also need to move faster than the TUC to take our case to Parliament, acting in concert with as many other public service workers as we can – as part of a continuing public relations campaign to win the hearts and minds of the millions of working people whose support we can win for a struggle for fair pay for public servants.

We should start with a campaign to get the trade union linked MPs to support our pay claim – and oppose the Government’s 2% pay limit – and with as much organised support as we can deliver for the public sector strike action already planned for April 24th.

Support the Teachers on 24 April

Good news received this evening from my friend and comrade Alex Kenny of the NUT Executive...

The NUT has decided today to call members out for a one day strike on 24th April.This follows a ballot result of 75% in favour on a 32% turnout.The decision of the NUT Executive was unanimous and everyone was very positive about the ballot result.Regional rallies and demonstrations are being planned. Support for these will be welcome from other unions.

UNISON activists need to discuss how we can help the NUT to maximise the impact of their action in the opening battle of this year's pay round - and an appropriate riposte to those in the movement who were saying that the teachers were not part of a pay fight this year.

Both the turnout and the "yes" vote are positive and impressive, and compare favourably with results which have produced effective action in the past.

Labour Link - an apology

I was really pleased to hear about plans for the UNISON National Labour Link Committee to issue an apology to UNISON National Delegate Conference for having nominated Gordon Brown to be leader of the Labour Party, in the light of the reactionary policies which he has since pursued.

UNISON insider, Avril Poisson, spilled the beans to me earlier and I understand that an explanatory circular will be issued to all branches this morning – so check your email before noon!

April Fools in Government

It’s always fun to look out for April Fool’s jokes.

The one’s I’ve seen today just aren’t very convincing though.

It’s not plausible that, facing electoral meltdown a sane Labour Prime Minister would speed up public service “reform” (a.k.a. privatisation).

Nor that a Labour Government would continue to ignore the settled position of Party Conference on public housing by refusing additional resources to build council housing.

The story about how the Government is ignoring a consensus in opposition to extending detention without charge is better though, because it is so close to the truth…

Still, these days, to hold both a union card and a Labour Party card certainly requires a sense of humour.

Prioritising UNISON Conference

Where could you go on the internet if you wanted an overlong description of how the agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference is put together?

Well…thinking back…

In spite of the large number of motions (and Amendments to Rule) which have been ruled out of order by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) this year in the run up to UNISON’s National Delegate Conference, there remain more items on the Preliminary Agenda than it will be possible to debate during Conference week. Whether any particular motion will be debated will depend upon where it is in the order of business.

The order of business is set by the SOC (who have discretion under Rule to do this) but in setting the order of business have regard to the outcome of a prioritisation process. UNISON’s Regions, Self-Organised Groups, Service Groups and the NEC itself express preferences, in order of priority for which motions should be debated.

A Region, for example, can prioritise twelve motions in order. How the Region does this is a matter for the Region. It could be done by the Regional Committee for example. In the Greater London Region it is traditionally done by a straw poll of branches in which the preferences of each branch have equal weight regardless of membership. Regional Self-Organised Groups also get a “vote” in this process.

The top priority of a Region is awarded twelve “points” all the way down to the twelfth priority which gets one “point”. SOC aggregate the scores from all the Regions and other bodies which express preferences and use these to structure the agenda in two ways.

First, only “prioritised motions” (i.e. those which obtain a minimum of one “point” in the process) have any chance at all of being debated at Conference. Non-prioritised motions are not debated, and in general SOC will not allow non-prioritised motions to be part of Composites with prioritised motions.

Secondly, those with the most points generally get debated first. This works in two ways. Some of the highest prioritised motions are timetabled for debate at a specific point in the week. Others sit at the top of the “remaining order of business” also known as the snake.

Where more than one motion on the same topic is prioritised the lower priority motions may be moved up the agenda so that Conference only debates each topic once, and SOC clearly do exercise some judgement about the order of business so that the “points” are not necessarily adhered to too rigidly.

All prioritised motions, no matter how far down the order of business, are available for reprioritisation in the brief period on Friday afternoon when Conference delegates decide by ballot which motions to deal with. Equally, not all prioritised motions (other than those timetabled or very high up the “snake”) are guaranteed to be debated.

Any motions, prioritised or not, which are not debated at Conference (or withdrawn from the agenda by the proposers) are referred at the close of Conference to the National Executive Council (NEC) who determine UNISON policy on the motion (generally by reaffirming existing policy).

Therefore in determining which motions to try to prioritise the following points need to be borne in mind;
Are there important motions which no one else may prioritise but which it may be possible to get some priority in the hope that they can be reprioritised for the Friday afternoon?
Are there important motions which may not attract sufficient support to be guaranteed debate (as has recently happened with motions from the National Black Members self-organised group)?
Are the NEC likely to support or oppose the motion? (bearing in mind that it may be particularly important to prioritise debate on motions opposed by the NEC since Conference is the only opportunity for a debate on such motions)

An alternative approach would simply be to pick what seem to be the twelve most important topics, but since Regions, the NEC and Self-Organised Groups are all likely to prioritise the motions which they themselves are moving (and since these are likely to reflect the key priorities for the Union) this approach risks leaving other issues completely off the agenda.

All of which begs the question of what to actually prioritise…

Islington on pay

The following Motion put to Islington’s AGM today was passed unanimously, the part in italics was and amendment moved from the floor by someone who felt one day strikes was not enough and we needed to take much more sustained action. It nice to know the membership can be in advance of the leadership even in Islington Branch!

EMERGENCY MOTION ON PAY

The branch AGM notes that the employers have offered only 2.2% which has been rejected by the NJC trade union side.
The branch AGM further notes this is some considerably distance away from the unions claim of 6% and also significantly below the rate of inflation based on RPI which is currently running at over 4%.

The Trade Union Side has agreed to meet with employers again in early April however it is unlikely that the offer would be significantly improved upon.

The branch also believes after the yes vote in last November’s Industrial Action Ballot there is no need for any further consultation with the membership prior to moving to a formal industrial action ballot. If there is a yes vote we need to move to sustained strike action.

The AGM calls for UNISON side of the NJC also the service group executive to move to an industrial action ballot with immediate effect and to coordinate all industrial action with other sector of Unison and other public service unions.

UNISON's opposition to nuclear power

Call me an 80s retread hippy environmentalist if you will but I find the news that the Government are gung ho for nuclear power alarming. I’ve pointed out before that UNISON is at odds with Gordon Brown on this. UNISON has policy in opposition to nuclear power.

The arguments for nuclear power are predictable ones about job creation and uber-Blairite Hutton says that nuclear power will be the new North Sea oil. North Sea oil was dangerous – but this doesn’t really compare with this. Nuclear power is criminally dangerous and creates radioactive waste which we have no long term plans for.

We do face an energy crisis, but it needs to be tackled by radical reductions in our use of energy and by developing renewables – not by trying to breathe life into the nuclear industry.

Green issues have a higher profile within our Union than ever before – and there are several motions on climate change on the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference which would lend themselves to an appropriate anti-nuclear amendment because nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.

Motion 107 from Camden includes appropriate anti-nuclear sentiments which could be added by amendment to other motions more likely to be prioritised in order to ensure that UNISON’s opposition to nuclear power is clearly restated in the composite on Climate Change which will probably be one of the key debates at this year’s Conference.

As readers of this blog will probably know, only those Conference motions which are prioritised are available for debate and compositing at Conference. Motions from the NEC and Regions are most likely to be prioritised, so amendments to motions 103, 104 and 105 look like a good idea.

(If anyone reading this supports nuclear power I suggest that we bring all the radioactive waste round your house then?)

A bit out of order?

Just a brief note as I am busy working.

I am sure all UNISON members reading this blog will share my disappointment that an apparent bid by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) for our National Delegate Conference to make it into the Guiness Book of Records seems likely to have failed.

It appears that the SOC wanted to be the first ever to rule out of order more motions to National Delegate Conference than they admitted to the agenda. Unfortunately;

(1) (with thanks to the Croydon branch for the maths) just 48.5% of all submissions to Conference have been ruled out of order (it would be cheating to count only those submissions not made by the NEC in order to push the figure above 50%), and;

(2) it appears that there is no such section of the Guiness Book of Records!

More here later about this (more than you want probably...)

Can local government workers stomach strike action over pay?

A hat tip (as we bloggers say) to John McDermott for doing some maths about the very limited value of a 2.2% pay offer as has just been made to local government workers. John makes the point that we cannot afford this real pay cut.

Some anonymous comment on an earlier post here has however taken issue with the conclusion which I have drawn that we need national strike action in response to this offer (even if it goes up to 2.5% in the next few weeks).

It’s probably wrong of me but I tend to associate such anonymous comments with a political group noted for both anonymity and hostility to national strike action over public sector pay. However the arguments against strike action will be used by the employers as well as by right-wingers within the movement, and it is important that those of us who are loyal to the interests of UNISON and its members can engage with these arguments.

It is through engaging in debate with our members that we will be able to determine whether we can in fact deliver the action which will be needed to secure a satisfactory pay settlement.

There are those who see the role of trade union leadership as essentially passive – they believe that the leadership should strive to reflect the views of the membership and treat these views as if they were static – like the commentator on this blog who asks if there is the “stomach” for strike action.

I don’t share this perspective. I believe that the role of trade union leadership (which means everyone from General Secretary all the way up to a shop steward) is to seek to develop a strategy which can advance the interests of the members and then to win our members to support that strategy – in part that therefore involves trying to persuade members to take action and to make sacrifices. Whether we can win such arguments depends upon how persuasive and convincing our strategy and our arguments are.

The two main arguments against strike action are (1) that it won’t work and (2) that the costs will outweigh the benefits. These interact of course because no pay strike is likely to end in outright victory (i.e. the employers conceding our full claim) and it is therefore possible to compare the value of what is achieved (in terms of an increase in an initial offer) with the cost of the action to the strikers (in terms of loss of pay).

I have suggested previously on this blog that there is some reasonably persuasive recent historical evidence that national strike action over local government pay can improve local government pay relative to the rest of the economy. A more recent example of the potential effectiveness of national local government strike action is, of course the strike action we took in 2006 over local government pensions – while I was sceptical of the official verdict that this secured a “victory” there can be no doubt that the Government was shifted from its original position.

The evidence is that we do have the industrial muscle to secure a better pay offer (the question obviously is whether we have a strategy to exercise this muscle in the right way – and I will come back to that in a later post).

For members trying to decide, collectively and individually, whether to support a call for strike action, as well as the critical question of how they judge the Union’s strategy and its likely effectiveness, there is also the “cost-benefit analysis” – the comparison of pay lost through strike action with likely gains from taking the action.

One commentator on this blog said “I've worked out that for every day I go on strike the pay offer will have to increase by about 0.5% for me to recover the loss in the days wages in this pay year” and they were answered – in part – by the next commentator who pointed out that “if you do go on strike and management cave in, the 0.5% per day you 'lose' is then made up by the fact that whatever increase you have increases the 'base salary' year on year.”

In fact, if pay is deducted at the rate of 1/260th of annual salary for each day of strike action (as decided in UNISON’s recent legal victory) then that is 0.38% of annual salary for every day of strike action. Four days of strike action would need to see an increase in the employers’ offer of 1.5% in order to make good the loss of earnings in the same pay year – an increase of 0.755% in the employers’ offer would make good the loss within two pay years – an increase of 0.525% in three years (the principle is rather more important than the precise figures).

There are two important caveats to this calculation. The first is that a successful pay strike can have a knock on effect on pay offers in future years, the positive effect of which is not captured by these figures. The second is that these calculations can only be done after the event, whereas the decision about whether or not to support strike action has to be taken (rather obviously) in advance. The members deciding whether or not to take strike action have to make judgements about how much action will be required and what the likely outcome will be – in the public sector in particular these are judgements about politics not about arithmetic.

So what it all comes back to is whether we – the leadership of the Union – can advance a strategy which persuades our members that the sacrifice of strike action is worth making. That is what determines whether there is “the stomach” for strike action. That is what we need to be discussing…

Poor pay offer demands strike ballot

Yes – an initial 2.2% pay offer is indeed a “slap in the face” to local government workers. The Trade Union Side was unanimous in condemning the offer, which attaches strings to a basic pay offer below even the current CPI level of 2.5%.

We should be responding with honesty and clarity.

We need to be honest with our members about the rate of inflation – we don’t need to care about the CPI index which does not reflect the cost of living. We have to acknowledge that a pay rise below the Retail Price Index (RPI) will be a real terms pay cut. If 2.2% is a slap in the face, 2.5% will be a poke in the eye.

We also have to be clear that we are not going to get anywhere near a pay rise which keeps pace with real price inflation without national strike action. That is why it is not helpful or encouraging to hear that there will be further negotiations on 2 April. That’s too late.

Our pay rise is due on 1 April. Every day that passes beyond that date in 2008 without moves towards a strike ballot will be a day on which members will start to conclude that we are not serious.

Winning a strike ballot will not be easy and winning a better pay deal will not be easy. We may not win. However if we genuinely believe in the justice of the claim which we have submitted we owe it to our members to offer a strategy which could win us an offer closer to our claim.

I believe that the evidence is that national strike action could do this and that we ought to offer our members the opportunity to support action which can win – and to do so now.

UNISON Regional Committee and the standing orders for the Regional Council

I knew the title of this post would grab your attention...

I shall be sorry to miss tomorrow’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee (honestly! I enjoy Regional Committees) and shall invite other comrades to let us know here what excitement takes place.

One topic which is covered in the report from the Regional Convenor and Secretary to tomorrow’s meeting is the vexed question of the arrangements for the Standing Orders Committee function for the Regional Council (i.e. who decides what gets admitted to the agenda and what does not).

For those with long memories you may recall reading about this here before.

Long ago when UNISON was young there was a Standing Orders Committee for the Regional Council, a body so engaged by its function that it recommended that it cease to exist and that its functions pass to the Regional Committee.

Eventually, perhaps because the Regional Committee was often admirably liberal in what it would permit to be debated at the Regional Council, officers felt that it was inappropriate that the Regional Committee should fulfil this function, citing a “conflict of interest.”

And, although there are other Regions where such an approach appears not to be a problem, most of those interested in this debate could see the point. The Regional Secretary identified two options for the carrying out of the Standing Orders function – both of them consisting of small sub groups of the Regional Committee (either the Regional Finance Team or the Regional Council Officers Group).

More than a year ago at the Regional Committee a third option was suggested – an elected Standing Orders Committee independent of the Regional Committee. There followed a process of “consultation” with branches which covered only the two options identified by the Regional Secretary and not the third proposed by an experienced and respected Regional Committee member.

A small minority of branches responded and a fair few backed the option which had not even been included in the consultation, but slightly fewer backed one of the other options (giving the job to the Regional Council Officers team) and this was then imposed without any sanction of either the Regional Council or Regional Committee.

To date the Regional Council has not agreed to this change. At the Annual General Meeting last month both options were put to the vote and neither commanded the two thirds majority required to change the rules. Votes were counted but the results were not announced (though it was pretty clear that the option of an elected Standing Orders Committee, for which the case was put more convincingly, commanded the greater support).

In the light of this decision I was hoping to see a compromise suggestion from the Regional leadership, taking seriously their responsibility for unifying the Union in Greater London. Instead I was disappointed to read a proposal that an option which had specifically not been approved by the Regional Council should continue and that the Regional Council Officers should continue to provide the Standing Orders function for the Regional Council.

Whilst technically the Regional Committee may decide to delegate this responsibility in this way, to do so in the face of the Regional Council decision seems bizarre.

I have suggested a possible compromise to the Regional Convenor and Secretary. I hope that the Regional Committee will reflect on this and will try to reach out and unite our Union. We face something of a crisis of activism and engagement in the Region (as evidenced by the disappearance of branch bids to the Regional Pool over the recent period) and this will only change if we all try to reach out and work constructively together.

I wish good luck to all those who go to tomorrow’s Regional Committee hoping to build and strengthen UNISON.

Update on Wednesday 19 May - news from Mabels is that the Regional Committee did agree, by a majority, to delegate its standing orders functions in respect of the Regional Council to the Regional Council Officers group, although the Regional Council itself had not agreed this.

More statistics on pay...

While we're waiting for the Pay Review Body in the NHS and the meeting of the Executive of the National Joint Council in local government, here's a little picture stolen shamelessly from the excellent "Campaign Teacher" to show why the likely offer of 2.5% or so is rubbish.

It's not about "breaking the 2% pay norm" now - it's about beating the rate of price inflation. And that's the Retail Price Index (RPI = real price inflation) not the Consumer Price Index (CPI = con-trick price inflation).

Perhaps someone who's a bit more artistic than me can do better with the graphic?

Haringey local government branch AGM

It’s good to learn of progress in negotiations in the dispute over Birmingham’s pay and grading review. I hope that the detail of offers being made (and those being accepted) can be shared more widely in the Union.

Whatever view members in Birmingham take of the current state of negotiations it is clear that the dispute shows that strike action can shift the employers – in other words, strike action works.

This is a point I made (perhaps a little predictably) yesterday to the well attended Annual General Meeting of the Haringey local government branch, at which I spoke about the national local government pay claim, pointing out how our pay has fallen behind rising prices, and how the evidence of the past is that national local government pay strikes can improve the pay of local government workers.

Sonya Howard, from Kensington and Chelsea branch, who also addressed the meeting, gave a wide ranging and well received overview of the challenges facing UNISON in local government.

The branch also agreed a very positive policy to promote and development environmental activism as an integral part of our Union (Green UNISON as it is now being called). Will environmental activism given an impetus to our organisation – and recruit new activists (as our work on the learning agenda has to some extent) – or will it just be more demands upon the time of a few?

Since climate change has destructive potential equivalent in the long term to the threat we faced (rather more immediately) from nuclear war in the 1980s we probably need to pay attention to the issue regardless of its implications for our organisation of course!

Too busy for lay democracy?

Whenever two or more UNISON activists are gathered together you know we’ll end up complaining about how busy we are at some point, it’s right up there with other favourite discussion topics like “improbable victories at disciplinary hearings” and sharing good and bad information about senior HR managers as they progress between employers.

Well today we learned that our paid officials (and particularly our senior paid officials) are much busier than we are (so no doubt we should stop moaning!)

The UNISON Greater London Regional Office has today cancelled, with a little less than one day’s notice, tomorrow’s Annual Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Committee because of ill health.

I understand that we need not fear that a bug has hit dozens of our staff - the ill health in question is only of a couple of key colleagues. I am sure that I will join with every other UNISON member in the Region in sending best wishes to colleagues who are unwell and wishing them a speedy return to good health.

There will be those who will be perplexed that the Region can find no other officials with appropriate seniority or experience to support the meeting proceeding as planned, bearing in mind that delegates representing 80,000 UNISON members in the local government service group in the Greater London Region will have made arrangements to attend.

Obviously without the presence of the Regional Head of Service Group it would not be possible to do everything as well as we would wish – some reports would have to have been deferred. However, any official could have sat beside the Chair and assisted with the basic business of the AGM (elections and so forth). I take it that most readers of this blog are union activists and will appreciate just what an extreme step it is to cancel an Annual Meeting, particularly of such a key Committee (meeting on the brink of a likely pay dispute in UNISON’s largest service group).

I don’t doubt that there will be those who will not receive the message about the cancellation of the meeting at such short notice in spite of the best efforts of the Regional Office to cancel the meeting.

Perhaps however we should be reassured and impressed that all the other members of our Regional Management Team and all of the many experienced and capable officials servicing our members in local government are so busy with work of vital importance that they cannot cancel their commitments tomorrow to enable the Annual Meeting of the Regional Local Government Committee to go ahead…

I really don’t quite know how to feel about this.

Against immigration controls

Today the Government introduced a “points system” to restrict migration from outside the EU. Trade unionists should give this “nul points”.

Some in the labour movement may secretly welcome restrictions on immigration, believing that we should prioritise reducing the supply of labour in order to reduce downward pressure on wages.

UNISON policy is a little more advanced. UNISON believes;a) that no worker should be classed as illegal; b) all workers have a right to put a roof over their head and food on the table.

That’s why the Union focuses on organising migrant workers.

When it comes to immigration there are those in the labour movement who understand the progressive position adopted by trade unions such as UNISON and those who don’t.

Mass migration isn’t going away any time soon – and there is no reason why socialists and trade unionists should wish that it would. We don't set ourselves in opposition to workers coming from other countries.

Historically craft unions could try to enhance their bargaining power by restricting the supply of labour - but general unions (which is what we are really) have very limited scope to do this. Even if it were possible for us to lobby succesfully to restrict immigration in order to reduce labour supply and drive up wages, the political consequences of pandering to racism would impose unacceptable long term costs upon our movement.

We need to organise the workers who are here to be organised.

We need to continue to build alliances for justice for migrant workers – but we also need to see the trade unions taking on New Labour’s racist immigration policies in public.

Where is the public opposition from the trade unions to today’s development? Here? Here? Here?

Right wing attack on Local Government Pensions

The saloon-bar Tories of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (linked to shadowy Tory backers the Midlands Industrial Council) sometimes produce data of which we can make use – but today they are seeking some cheap publicity by having a go at the cost of our Local Government Pension Scheme.

They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.

Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.

Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.

Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?

No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)

Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??

Local Government Pay - lessons from the past...

I am sorry if I am becoming obsessive about local government pay – but then this is an unashamedly trade union related blog, so I don’t imagine you’re reading it primarily for its entertainment value.

My last post looked at the statistics which show how the real earnings of local government workers have been declining since our last national pay strike – and consequent settlement – in 2002. (I know that I am simplifying things massively in both that post and this – but I think that’s necessary).

The question of course is what to do about this. I think we should look at evidence about what has happened in the past, and try to work out from this evidence what might happen in the future. One valuable source of historical information on local government pay is the report of the Local Government Pay Commission.

It’s four and a half years old of course, but it still contains some useful data, such as the table above, which shows the relationship between NJC pay settlements and earnings growth in private sector services between 1988 and 2002.

This shows that for most of that period, NJC pay settlements were below the rate of earnings growth in private sector services – the exceptions are three consecutive years in the early 1990s (1990-92) and 2002 itself (which was the last settlement before the Pay Commission collated this data).

What accounts for these periods of relatively rapid pay increase in local government? Well, at the risk (again) of oversimplifying, it is pretty obvious that the national pay strikes in 1989 and again in 2002 are both associated with brief periods in which local government pay accelerates above its general trend, which is to grow more slowly than earnings in the private services sector.

Successful national strike action can secure a better pay settlement in the year in which it is taken but can also have a knock on effect for a little while. Without occasional national strike action, local government pay will tend to fall behind. So, I think, we do need to begin to prepare for national strike action.

The question then is, how are we going to organise this to win, in circumstances which are certainly far less favourable than they were in 1989…?

Fed up with falling pay :(

I was pleased to be invited to speak yesterday to the AGM of the Southwark branch of UNISON, in connection with which I was reading some briefing notes produced by UNISON HQ in support of the local government pay claim.

These made the sound point that price rises rather than our pay claims are what is driving inflation (although I did feel a reference to the price of haircuts made me needlessly self-conscious…)

Anyway, it got me looking at labour market statistics, which led me to think that prices certainly have gone up – the all items Retail Price Index having increased by 17.3% between 2002 and 2007. That means roughly that each pound we earned in 2007 could buy what eighty five pence would have bought five years before.

Earnings across the economy as a whole have kept ahead of prices (though not by much) – having increased by 20.6% over the same period, so on average workers are a little less than 3% better off in material terms over those five years. This is what an increase “in real terms” means – it means you can buy more than you could before.

However, taking a fixed point on the local government pay spine (say SCP 28), that has increased by just 15.5% between 1 April 2002 to 1 April 2007, from £19,776 to £22,845. So a local government worker stuck at the top of a grade for those five years is actually worse off in real terms (by 1.5%) than we were five years ago. That means that our salaries are only buying us 98.5% of the goods and services we could afford when we settled the 2002 pay dispute (that's a pay cut "in real terms").

So not only are we falling behind average earnings (by four and a half per cent over the five year period) which pushes us down the “pay league” we are actually worse off than we were. A 6% pay rise (bringing SCP 28 up to £24,216), with the RPI at 4%, in the coming year, would put our pay a grand total of half a per cent higher “in real terms” than it was in 2002.

Implementation of our full claim would just lead to us “catching up” with rising prices, it wouldn’t come near to “matching up” with increasing average earnings. I think we had better do something about this…

Strike action works

UNISON members – taking action with other trade unionists – have achieved some success in a dispute with our largest English local authority employer.

UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.

When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.

It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.

However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.

This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…

LGPS Valentine's Day message...

Like most of you, dear readers, the laying of Statutory Instruments before Parliament was not foremost in my mind on Valentine’s Day.

Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.

Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.

For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.

In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).

Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;

“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”

Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)

The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.

This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?

I await the next update…

London UNISON Labour Link Election

It that time of year again when London region holds its Labour Link elections. Once again we have a choice to elect socialists who will stand for a Labour Link that will take UNISON policy’s into the Labour Party and fincially support MP’s and other representatives though constituency devlopment plans etc who support UNISON policies. For a change to the current leadership of the regional Labour Link who just want the link to be a supporters club for the Brown Government.

The following candidates are being supported by London UNISON Labour left Network for Labour Link elections in The London region.

Regional Committee Seats (Female)

Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Felicity Irwin
Helen Martin
Pam Woods

Regional Committee (Male)

Andrew Berry
Phil Lewis
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Heenal Rajani

National Labour Link Forum (Female)

Lucy Anderson
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Helen Martin
Pam Woods

National Labour Link Forum (Male)

Sean Fox
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux

Labour Party Conference

Katrina Hoogendam

Standing Orders Committee

Andrew Berry

The ballot papers have been sent to the Labour Link Officer or Branch Secretary, the deadline to return them in is 29th Feb. If you can’t locate them contact the regional office.

Also don’t forget to get Branch Delegates elected to the Labour Link Forum taking place on the 26th Feb 4-6pm, House of Commons. Deadline for Branches to register there delegates is 22nd February.

February 14th - Groundhog Day for UNISON

Yes!

We have delivered a Valentines Card to the Government…

Last year it was the local government employers.

In 2002 we sent a card to all MPs, in 2005 only to Scottish MPs.

What an inspired and original tactic…

A tale of two mergers...

Interesting to see two contrasting union mergers announced today. Over on the class struggle wing of the movement members of the OILC are joining forces with the RMT, meanwhile in the quieter pastures of social partnership ACM and ATL have come to an agreement which Brendan Barber describes as “an imaginative new form of union co-operation” although it looks like a carbon copy of the UNISON/FDA vehicle “Managers in Partnership” only for the education rather than the health sector.

Clearly there is room in the movement for both approaches to building trade unionism, but my heart is certainly with the comrades joining the RMT. Offshore workers had been badly let down by the union movement when they were forced to create their own union twenty years ago – and it is good to see the OILC coming back to a TUC affiliated union.

More fun at the UNISON NEC

Having already posted some of the main items of debate at today’s meeting of the UNISON NEC, I’ll just mention a few other topics before the excitement of the day overcomes me.

Among the subjects covered by our General Secretary in a wide ranging report were the following.

UNISON will be protesting about the conduct of (former trade union official) Kim Howells, who got himself photographed alongside a Colombian military unit noted for killing trade unionists.

We will be encouraging members to lobby their MPs to support agency workers by staying at work on a Friday afternoon to back the Private Members’ Bill on 22 February. Lobby your MP now!

UNISON, together with Searchlight and the Daily Mirror, will be backing a major anti-BNP campaign in the run up to the May elections.

In response to a question, Dave confirmed that a campaign against the victimisation of Karen Reissman is now being led by the North West Region. He also offered to discuss with my fellow London NEC member, and Newham UNISON Branch Secretary, Irene Stacey, what further support to offer to victimised Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.

For those with an interest in internal trade union matters I can report that we had a split vote on whether or not to approve a report on internal disciplinary matters, with a majority of those voting approving the report but a larger number of NEC members either not present or not voting.

I was also assured, having made representations at the request of the Greater London Regional Committee about the permissibility of jobsharing seats on the TUC delegation that the composition of the delegation would be reviewed.

A full report will be with London branches in the next couple of days.

Update on Thursday – the official report is now online here.

Equal Pay debate at the UNISON NEC

I can tell you that UNISON’s NEC today discussed Equal Pay. I can’t say much more, although I think I can safely mention campaigning for funding to fill the gender pay gap and that UNISON made a submission to the Discrimination Law Review, since they are pretty much in the public domain anyway.

Beyond that it is pretty safe to say that there is a lot of litigation, case law is developing apace and it all costs a fair bit. Of course this topic relates to the implementation of Single Status in local government, and the NEC sent its support to the 20,000 members who recently took strike action in Birmingham.

For detailed guidance on equal pay issues UNISON activists should continue to look out for the briefings that are taking place. Unfortunately we still won't be debating these issues at Conference, a state of affairs which I think is becoming untenable.

Debate on pay at the UNISON NEC

Appropriately enough the issue of pay was high up the agenda for today’s UNISON NEC meeting, although much of the progress that could be reported related to what is on the website.

It was reported that the NHS employers have yet to make an offer (in the context of discussions about the possibility of a multi-year pay deal which would encompass matters beyond the remit of the Pay Review Body) and that local government employers won’t make an offer until 19 March. Opinion is divided as to whether they will make a single year offer and if so at what level they will pitch it. The Scottish local government employers have just made a very low three year offer.

UNISON’s Service Group Liaison Committee will meet in March to consider the position and we were advised that this is the first time in history that UNISON’s Service Groups have agreed to talk to each other before accepting pay offers. Truly today the UNISON NEC was walking with destiny…

We shall just have to be patient, as I was advised that “anyone with half an ounce of sense” would know that we can’t start talking about strike action when we don’t even have a trade dispute yet. We were also told to concentrate on unity with unions in our own sectors (although bizarrely this doesn’t seem to include likely strike action by a key local government union in April…)

Local Government NEC member Paul Holmes expressed the view that national strike action will be unavoidable and will be supported by members, since the employers won’t make an acceptable offer and our members can’t afford more years of declining living standards. I tend to agree and certainly think it’s prudent to be preparing now for the eventuality of national strike action.

Conference discussion at the UNISON NEC

UNISON’s National Executive Council today welcomed a delegation of trade unionists from Southern Africa attending a Conference on HIV/AIDS. We were also treated to a presentation on green issues, which provided one of the Conference motions to be proposed to National Delegate Conference by the NEC.

The NEC agreed to submit motions on;
Equality through Learning;
Organising;
Palestine;
South Africa and the Region;
Education and Skills;
Employment Rights;
Green UNISON;
NHS at 60;
Housing;
Local Services;
Public Services;
The Economy.

If any UNISON branches in Greater London would like to see copies of the motions please get in touch.

There was a fair bit of discussion about several of the motions, but the approach of our President was to take an affirmative vote and only to consider amending motions if a majority did not back the motion unamended. Few amendments were made to the motions as drafted by the office (NEC motions are not of course generally written by NEC members…)

Health service group rep Kate Ahrens suggested we might put fewer motions on the agenda from the NEC but that idea did not find favour, any more than the sensible suggestion from Yorkshire and Humberside Regional representative, John McDermott, that we might think of inviting the General Secretary of another public service union to address our Conference on the theme of unity over public sector pay.

One missing motion was a proposal from the Finance and Resource Management Committee for a motion on measures necessary to fund the cost of litigation on Equal Pay. The Committee had been advised (informally) that the Standing Orders Committee had indicated that such a motion would likely be ruled out of order. The NEC was therefore advised that these proposals would now appear in the Annual Report to Conference.

I shall return to this topic.

Is now the time for action?

As in comedy so in industrial struggle, timing can be everything. At a branch level you know when it is too early to argue for strike action over impending job losses (when everything is too vague and uncertain for people to be sufficiently worked up about it) and you know when it is too late (when the majority know that they are safe and only a few people face possible redundancy). Getting that moment in the middle isn’t easy.

So I do have some sympathy with those at the top of the movement who can’t quite decide whether this really is the year to stop the public sector pay freeze. Last year UNISON members in health were balloted without a recommendation on pay (and woe betide any who tried to issue recommendations!) In local government we were recommended to reject but in the face of equivocal views from sections of the lay as well as the full-time leadership, our strike ballot delivered a result which did not lead to action. So 2007 wasn’t the year.

I think it should be 2008. I don’t believe anyone who says they think that 2009 looks a better bet. With a General Election likely I fear that there will be a battening down of political hatches. If we don’t fight back against below inflation pay rises this year then we are likely to walk into multi-year pay deals (whether they start this year or next) which will cut the living standards of our members year on year for the foreseeable future.

I have heard a fair bit now about how complex it is to coordinate action on pay between different Unions – indeed between different bits of the same Union! I am sure it is complex, but I think that we have a national leadership precisely in order to do complex and difficult things so I am not persuaded by that argument to the conclusion that we cannot achieve coordination.

I have also heard it said that national strike action is somehow out of date, but this unoriginal argument (which I am sure I first heard parroted by “Eurocommunists” more than twenty years ago) belongs in the undergraduate politics seminar where it was first thought of (particularly since its adherents haven’t the first idea what we can put in place of strike action).

I’ll let you know what is said on Wednesday at the UNISON NEC on this topic. I have heard it said that UNISON has been hostile to calls for action at the TUC, but I’m sure that can’t be right, because such calls are in line with our agreed policy. I expect it was a joke. But then in comedy, as in industrial action, timing can be very important to the humour…

Regional Council Annual General Meeting - London4Change - but changing what?

I said earlier that I would post a further report from Wednesday's meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council Annual General Meeting. Those seeking a somewhat different point of view can find one here. I should stress that what follows are my personal opinions.

This was another well attended Annual General Meeting of our Regional Council, though those attending in such numbers have not been able to make other meetings of the Regional Council quorate since 2005 - we must do better this year.

We managed to agree one policy motion (on pay) and to debate four Rule Amendments (none of which were carried by the required two thirds majority). We therefore failed to reach the majority of the agenda put forward by branches and Committees in the Region. Our Convenor will have to rise to the challenge of chairing future Council meetings in a way which facilitates swifter progress. (it was unfortunate that several obviously unnecessary counts were taken of votes where the show of hands was clearly not that close).

Gloria Hanson (Newham local government) defeated Mandy Berger (Camden local government) for Convenor and Conroy Lawrence (Lewisham hospital) won the position of Deputy Convenor in a contest with Malcolm Campbell (Croydon local government). The elections for other Regional Council officers went with these results so that the candidates of "London4Change" defeated candidates of "the left". The results were very close, as is evidenced from the results in the election of six General seats on the Regional Committee in which each "slate" won three positions.

A victim of the vote was former Equality Convenor, Khi Rafe, who stood as an independent candidate (though clearly supported by the left). Khi had established a high profile in that role over the past year and will be a hard act to follow.

These results are consistent with a margin of victory in single figures at a meeting at which the number of votes cast must have exceeded 250.

The winning side continued their practice of close cooperation with paid officials (delegates uncertain of how to vote were visibly introduced to certain lay activists who helpfully assisted in the completion of ballot papers - although this shouldn't have been necessary since otherwise unmarked voting instructions went so far as to tell those supporting the leadership slate in which order to cast their preferential votes depending upon the initial letter of their surname). If this impressive level of organisation could only be translated to the workplace some of the branches who have such difficulty securing the release of delegates to attend meetings would no doubt be in a better place! Initially I was clear that "London4Change" stood against what they perceive to be the "far left" in our Union. However after two years in which the elected Convenor and Deputy have stood - and been elected - on this basis I am still waiting to see what my colleagues are in favour of (rather than what they are opposed to). This year I learned that "London4Change" are against national strike action on pay, but not what it is that they think should be done positively...

Some local government delegates got the impression that certain leading lights supportive of the winning candidates were also opposed to local government UNISON branches (!) - certain colleagues from health made ill-informed comments about employee relations in local government which appeared to be calculated to sow division between health and local government activists in order to firm up a voting bloc at Regional Council without any thought for the unity or strength of our trade union.

As a member of UNISON United Left I would obviously prefer the Regional Council election results to have been different, but it would be churlish to begrudge the victors their victory or to complain about the level of organisation behind the succesful candidates (indeed if a narrow victory is all that can be achieved with such organisation in the third year of such effort it is very clear that there is a large constituency for lay democracy in the Greater London Region of UNISON).

Those who want to see a lay-led democratic trade union which takes its policies from our membership rather than the odd politics associated with some officials, need to pay more attention to the Union at Regional level. The lack of democratic accountability at Regional level hamstrings us when we are in dispute with employers and undermines campaigns against victimisation.

See you at the June Regional Council comrades, but in the mean time we need to get on with the work in the branches building opposition to Government pay policy and support for UNISON's campaign on pay.

UNISON London Region backs coordinated pay fight

A full and considered report from Wednesday's Annual General Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council will have to wait for the weekend.

Gloria Hanson was elected Convenor and Conroy Lawrence Deputy Convenor and I have sent both my congratulations. The first opportunity for the new team to show leadership will be in Newham on Monday evening – to support victimised activist Michael Gavan (for whom the Regional Committee expressed their full support).

In the brief time I have now I will remark upon the perplexing sight of a small bloc of delegates (including fellow NEC members and Regional Council officers) voting – against the policy of the Regional Committee – against a motion calling for coordinated action over public sector pay (which motion was entirely consistent with UNISON national policy and with what our guest speaker, UNISON President Norma Stephenson, had been saying).

The speaker against the motion rallied a small minority of delegates in opposition with the thought that national strike action is outdated and that we need “new thinking” – quite what this new thinking is about, where it is leading and how it will help our members facing real terms pay cuts we were not told. Perhaps someone who also opposed the motion will be able to elaborate in public on this “new thinking”.

Even stranger, the text of the gist of the speech which was read out by the delegate who spoke against the motion (and some of its keynote imagery of “sabre rattling”) is available online (as an article in the February 2008 edition of the journal of an obscure and secretive political group). If this is the inspiration for “new thinking” on pay I can’t wait!

Happily the Regional Council overwhelmingly agreed the motion for coordinated action on public sector pay and agreed to submit it to National Delegate Conference in the name of the Region.

The duty of all those in leading positions in the Region is now to work to implement the policy to coordinate the fight against the Government’s public sector pay policy – starting with wholehearted support for our comrades in other Unions.

Reactionary pillock of the month?

Just now and again New Labour can still astonish with outbursts of such reactionary stupidity that it takes your breath away.

Our new Housing Minister admitted she was surprised by figures showing that more than half of those of working age living in social housing are without paid work (which suggests she should get out more – maybe for a kebab with the Home Secretary?)

Therefore she wants to threaten tenants with eviction if they are deemed not to be seeking work. I don’t think UNISON members who work to provide social housing will be taken with such nonsense. It is not the job of Housing officers to throw people out of their homes at the behest of the employment service!

Many people without work need help to find decent, well-paid employment, and many of those people live in social housing. The threat of homelessness is not an acceptable tool to be employed by a supposedly Labour Government seeking to achieve this goal. What next? The Workhouse?

Happily Ms Flint says this is all to start a debate (with the cuddly Fabians). I hope that one of the other speakers has a chance to put her right!

London UNISON AGM Wednesday

With no use of UNISON resources I shall pass on the content of an email circulated by my friend and (Labour Party) comrade Malcolm Campbell to London Region UNISON Branches...

Please forward this to your Regional Council delegates and ask them to read it carefully.

I'm writing to urge you to vote for the following people in the election of Regional Council Officers this Wednesday:

Convenor: Mandy Berger

Deputy Convenor: Malcolm Campbell

Finance Convenor: Heenal Rajani

Publicity Officer: Katrina Hoogendam

Equalities Convenor: Khi Rafe

In his election address, Conroy Lawrence (who is standing against me for Deputy Convenor) talks about the Region being "captured by those who take their policies from extreme parties and who are answerable to their political masters and not UNISON's members". He is clearly suggesting that this describes those of us standing against him and his running mates. This is completely untrue.

I'm a member of the Labour Party and have never been a member of any other political party. Heenal, Katrina and Khi are also members of the Labour Party, and Mandy is not a member of any party.

The idea that we won't be answerable to the membership is misleading in the extreme. We're standing on a platform of democracy and accountability, because we believe that the leadership of the Region for the last two years hasn't been allowing the views of the membership to be considered. Debate has been stifled.

Examples of this are:

• An inquorate Regional Council meeting where debate was quite rightly allowed regarding the fight against fascism, but we weren't allowed to discuss the Pensions Dispute, which was at a crucial stage
• Not allowing the Regional Committee to vote on a proposal for a Regional rally on a strike day, when other regions were holding them.
• A consultation exercise regarding the establishing of a Regional Standing Orders Committee which only outlined two alternatives, and not a third which had been proposed, involving a directly elected SOC
• Introducing an SOC comprised of the Regional Council Officers, without the agreement of either the Regional Council or the Regional Committee
• Not allowing a proper debate regarding motions submitted to Regional Council which had been ruled out of order (this was at a meeting of the Regional Committee curtailed after only 10 minutes of the allotted 45, when the Acting Regional Convenor and the Regional Secretary left the room despite there still being a number of people indicating that they wanted to speak!)
• Not allowing a vote at the last Regional Committee on a perfectly valid proposal to commit the Region in principle to a joint union meeting in the future over Public Sector pay

This list isn't exhaustive and demonstrates that the way the Region is currently being run just isn't good enough.

PLEASE VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Malcolm seems to have put it very well...

Although he seems to have forgotten to tell people how to vote depending upon which letter of the alphabet their surname begins with, as is done by the "Congress House" slate (a.k.a. "London for Change" who are committed to no change). Come on now Malcolm!

Progress? Not with this Labour leadership...

It would be easy to ignore vacuous nonsense from Charles Clarke – who says that his priorities are “environmental sustainability, modern and effective public services and our relationship with the EU and the wider world” (thereby skilfully differentiating himself from those in favour of environmental catastrophe, old fashioned and ineffective public services and isolationism).

However it would be a mistake for rank and file trade unionists to take no notice of the latest outpouring of “modernising” twaddle from the Blair babes at Progress. We seem to have spent large parts of the last few years on the sidelines of shadow boxing between the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, during which we were encouraged to put our faith in the allegedly Labour instincts of the latter.

With Gordon Brown’s accession, backed by the nominations of the trade unions, we were supposed to expect a new dawn. Instead we have seen an acceleration of anti-trade union policies and a public sector pay freeze. We should be advancing positive trade union policies for a real Labour programme in opposition to the Government.

Instead some trade union leaders make an absolute priority of the re-election of a notionally “Labour” Government at any price. Others will welcome the re-appearance of a sub-Blairite “opposition” to the Prime Minister in order to justify continued support for the man responsible more than any other for attacking our members’ standard of living. This would be a terrible mistake.

Of course when the Blairites “warn Labour cannot afford to be seen as an "out-of-touch statist leviathan" what they actually mean is that there should be more privatisation and job cuts in the public sector (plus a smattering of talk about “partnership”, “the third sector” and so on). These people are not our friends.

But neither is the architect of the pay freeze. The real political dividing line in this country is not at all between different flavours of New Labour (nor between New Labour and Cameron’s Tories) it is between the political establishment on the one side and the trade unions (and the majority of Labour Party members) on the other.

The sort of modernisation we should want to see is a modern approach to fighting poverty, achieving equality and promoting the rights of workers and trade unions. Will those whose job it is to get political influence for the unions rise to this challenge?

Fighting for the rights of agency workers is a promising sign, but we need much more. We don’t need to take sides in debates at the top of the Labour Party between politicians all of whom are committed to privatisation – we need to mobilise our members to campaign for our policies – and drag along as many of the MPs who claim to be on our side as we can.