Better late than never...

This is the report which I have just circulated to London UNISON branches of the meeting of the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee meeting last month. I will blog again about some of the more important topics discussed at that meeting over the summer for the benefit of those who have left their holiday reading in the hotel ;)

Personal report of the July 2008 D&O meeting

I am sorry for the delay of almost one month in circulating this report from the 9th July meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee, on which all four of our Greater London Regional NEC members serve. Official reports will be made to the Regional Committee and Council in due course. This is a personal report (if anyone would prefer not to receive my personal reports please let me know).

The delay in preparing this report is due to the local government strike and the hot weather! However, I am pleased to be writing around to branches today so that I can draw to your attention the relaunch of the valiant struggle of the Fremantle workers to restore their terms and conditions. Check out this story on the Barnet UNISON branch blog and send your messages of support to the Barnet branch. You will see that there will be five picket lines to support on Thursday lunchtime for anyone who can get to Barnet at that time.

The D&O considered some major reports on serious issues and I would urge branches to put some of the items which follow on the agenda of your own Branch Committees at the earliest opportunity, as UNISON is a lay led union and our members at branch level are the people who should direct our future development.

Service Group and Branch Structures Review

The Committee received a report from the North West Regional Secretary, a former Chair of the Committee, on the work being undertaken to review our branch and service group structures. This is an issue of considerable importance to the future of our Union.

Branch Assessments

As part of this process next year will see the introduction of “joint Branch Region assessments” – a sort of “annual appraisal” for UNISON branches. This could be a valuable tool to assist branches in moving forward on our organising agenda, identifying areas for improvement and further work and enabling Regions to prioritise support to branches. However it also has the potential for disagreement and to invert the approach of our Rule Book which makes clear that officials are accountable to members and not the other way round.

The assessment process will be monitored by the D&O Committee and if any branches have questions about this process or would like to see the reports which we as NEC members have received please get in touch.

Your NEC members will also be available to assist in the implementation of these assessments and the Regional Convenor will have a role in helping to resolve any disagreements independently of officials.

Review of Service Group structures

Another major issue under this general heading is the review of service group structures, in relation to which the Committee finally received (officially) a report which had been in circulation (unofficially) in the spring.

This is a report which is a discussion document setting out three options for the future service group structure of our Union.

The first is a “minimal change option” (although including terminating the Transport Service Group on grounds of its size).

The second is a “moderate change option” which largely involves taking members out of the Local Government Service Group, by putting schools members into a new Education Service Group and probation members into a group with police staff, whilst consolidating Energy, Water, Transport and other private sector members into a Business and Environment Service Group.

The third, “High level change” option involves doing away with Service Groups altogether and relying upon existing sectors as the core building blocks of our union at a national level.

Branches should certainly timetable discussion of this issue for autumn Branch Committee meetings as there is to be consultation with Regional Secretaries on 4 September and Regional Convenors on 15 September and 22 November.

What appears to be an obscure issue – the structure of our Service Groups – may well have major implications for the effectiveness of our union in defending our members interests and for lay democracy and member control of UNISON.

There is to be consultation with branches starting from 16 September and, since this may lead to proposals for Rule Changes at next year’s Conference, it is important that branches timetable discussion in October. You can of course contact any of your NEC members if you want a more detailed explanation at a Branch Committee meeting.

Staffing and the Organising Challenge

The Committee received a detailed report from Bob Oram, Chair of the Staffing Committee, based upon a report given previously to the Service Group Liaison Committee.

This dealt with the staffing changes which are underway with the creation of the roles of Local Organiser and Area Organiser alongside the redefined role of Regional Organiser.

The Union is seeking to shift the emphasis of the work of our staff towards building up our organisation by creating more organising jobs (with fewer clerical and secretarial roles) and by redirecting the energies of our Regional Organisers. If the change from Regional Officer to Regional Organiser is more than just a name change this may be a very positive step.

Reserved Low Paid Seats

The Committee received a report recommending consultation on a potential change to the definition of “low pay” for the purposes of reserved low paid seats. These seats which (on the NEC and Service Group Executives) have seen few contested elections since vested day are now increasingly vacant as activists are regarded through Single Status and Agenda for Change.

Consultation on whether to raise the level of “low pay” for these purposes will be with Regions and Service Groups rather than branches – so branches will need to make their views known to members of the Regional Committee (or of course your NEC members). Of course the Regional Committee could decide to consult branches.

Whereas the Committee was presented with some radical and far reaching options on the future Service Group structure of the Union, the only concrete proposal on which it is proposed to consult in relation to the reserved low paid seats is whether to increase the relevant rate of pay.

Branches under Regional Supervision

The Committee receives a regular report on all branches placed under the supervision of their Regional Office (for a variety of reasons). I am pleased to report that as at 9 July no London branches were under Regional supervision.

Certification Officer cases

The Committee received an update on the appeals by UNISON against rulings of the Certification Officer in cases brought against the Union. A previous meeting of the Committee had endorsed the decisions to appeal in two recent cases (a decision which I had opposed).

Review of Democratic Processes

The review of UNISON’s democratic processes agreed by National Delegate Conference this June is to take place between September and next January, according to a report endorsed by the July D&O and also by the Policy Committee, which will share responsibility for the review.

It is not yet entirely clear how branches will be “engaged with” this review (although the report asserts that this will happen). There is to be a survey of branches in relation to attendance at Conferences which will be led by the D&O Committee. The Policy Committee will lead on the issue of making recommendations to members.

This was the area which gave rise to concern and to the relevant Conference decision, when branches seeking to make positive recommendations in last year’s National Health Service pay ballot were threatened with disciplinary action on the basis that, the Service Group Executive having agreed not to make a recommendation, it was a breach of UNISON policy for anyone else to try to do so.

This absurd decision is now clearly not the correct approach, as UNISON Conference has endorsed, with the support of our NEC, the right of branches to make and campaign for recommendations in member ballots. Those who believe in trade union democracy need to engage with this review of our democratic processes in order to ensure that there is no backsliding from the Conference decision to protect branch rights.

The NEC will be considering this review of democratic processes further at its meeting on 4 October so if any branches have particular views or issues which you want raised please contact one of your NEC members.

If you have any questions about this report, or would like copies of any of the papers considered at the meeting, please contact me at j.rogers@unison.co.uk.

A healthy decision on pay

It is greatly to the credit of the elected lay Health Service Group Executive that they are calling for a reopening of the debate about health service pay.

UNISON will work with the other health unions to submit new evidence to the NHS pay review body making the case for reviewing the 2009/2010 pay rates.

Should the PRB approach the Government proposing to reopen consideration of next year’s pay and the Government were to refuse, the union could declare a trade dispute and ballot for industrial action.

Were the PRB to refuse to approach the Government, the union could also declare a trade dispute and ballot for industrial action.

In neither case – of course – would the trade dispute be with the PRB. A trade dispute must always be with the employer (or with a Minister of the Crown acting as the employer). Regardless of the existence of a Pay Review Body, a trade union can always have a trade dispute with an employer about pay.

It’s called freedom of association…

Fremantle and the TUC one year on

I was honoured to attend a meeting of the Barnet UNISON Fremantle stewards industrial action committee this evening, where I was impressed once more with the determination of our low paid women members to fight to win back the conditions which have been stolen from them by their employers.

Senior regional officials of UNISON were there to express support and I would expect to hear more shortly about our campaign to restore lost conditions in a dispute which epitomises everything about our Union’s policy of opposition to privatisation and the need for an effective response.

This reminded me that – at last year’s TUC Congress – the Fremantle dispute got considerable helpful publicity. Which in turn reminded me that I have yet to blog about the Preliminary Agenda for the TUC, which has been online since Monday.

The agenda is the normal mixed bag, ranging from a call for regular foot health screening in schools from the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists (SCP) to a call for a series of one day general strikes against the anti-union laws from the Prison Officers Association (POA). Since we clearly do need to organise more strikes (involving standing on picket lines) and marches, the movement will no doubt have cause to call upon the SCP if we are to sustain our campaigns – and should anyone be imprisoned for our campaigning then the support of the POA will be a great comfort also.

The point that jumped out at me from this year’s agenda was the number of submissions on the crucial question of public sector pay. As I have reported before, one of UNISON’s motions is on public sector pay and the economy and calls for the TUC to co-ordinate public sector unions on pay and support unions taking industrial action. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) make some fairly modest (though sound) demands of the General Council in terms of production of campaign materials and support for joint union activity. The National Union of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) make a fairly optimistic demand of the Government to engage in constructive dialogue with the General Council, which rather misses the point (a bit too much of the old “social partnership” approach there I fear!)

Some other unions go a fair bit further in trying to get to united action however. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) call for coordinated action and a major national demonstration in opposition to public sector pay limits. The University and College Union (UCU) call for a Conference for all public sector unions in October to agree a date for united strike action. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) call upon the General Council to coordinate action, including a national demonstration before the end of the year, and the organisation of days of action including one major national day of action.

What will emerge from the process of compositing (known at Congress as “grouping”) remains to be seen. UNISON will rightly wish to assert our authority in those discussions as the largest public service union – and no doubt colleagues in other unions will already be looking at the very useful UNISON Conferences database in order to be clear about the policies democratically agreed by lay UNISON Conference delegates which should guide the position of UNISON officials participating in such discussions.

It is UNISON Conference policy to “continue a united campaign across the union and other public service unions to oppose the government's unjust and unjustifiable policy on public sector pay”.

So it would be in breach of the policy agreed by UNISON Conference if anyone representing UNISON sought to argue against a national demonstration on public sector pay, or against coordinated national strike action. Whether we need another Conference to set a date for unified strike action I am not sure. What we need is for a date to be set – perhaps UNISON will accept the responsibility to provide this leadership by setting a date for action by all our members who are in dispute over pay and inviting other TUC affiliates to join in?

Policy Forum - back to business as usual?

Turning aside from the question of the Labour leadership for a moment, what about the debate on policies?

Was it a triumph for the unions at the Labour Party policy forum?

Or not?

If there is a keynote issue for UNISON then it is the defence of public services.

In relation to which we appear to have won warm platitudes in which to wrap the cold reality of continuing privatisation (except that it doesn’t matter because the manifesto on which agreement was being sought at Warwick will not inform the actions of a Government)(We have to now start looking at what the Tories are up to because that is who we are going to be up against nationally).

There has to be a better way to campaign for our objectives than failing to obtain significant concessions from the Party which will, at best, form Her Majesty’s Opposition after the next General Election.

Particularly since it is precisely our failure to achieve a significant leftward shift in the approach of the Government which risks a catastrophic defeat at the next election for the Party to which we are affiliated.

It is a good job that our Conference has told us to take a long hard look at the work of our political fund. If UNISON Labour Link was a branch of our Union it would be under regional supervision.

Can the complacency which reigns at Mabledon Place in relation to the inadequacy of our political work be overcome?

Now what? (pay dispute)

Sorry to carry on with answers to questions that I have already asked, but I feel I should.

I have already asked; “what ought our objectives in this (national pay) dispute now to be and how shall we attempt to achieve them”?

The beginnings of an answer to this question are on my branch blog. We need to think further about strike action, political campaigning and all the various things which we can do to advance our cause.

We have a lot to do…

Measuring the effectiveness of strike action

Not wishing to disappoint regular readers Sid and Doris Blogger, I think I should start trying to answer some of the questions I posed this morning. How effective was our strike action last week and how do we measure its effectiveness?:

To make any sense I think it is necessary to take the second question first, and to accept that measuring the effectiveness of anything presupposes that you know what you are trying to achieve (so that you have some criteria for success against which to measure the effectiveness – in reality – of what you have been able to do).

So, to begin, I take it that our objective in the national pay dispute is to exert sufficient pressure, by whatever means, upon whoever it is helpful for us to exert pressure, in order to secure a significantly better pay rise for local government workers. In aiming for this we also want, as far as we can to build up union membership and strengthen union organisation.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Miners’ Strike will recall the daily reporting of how many miners were on strike and how many had returned to work. As the Thatcher Government gambled everything on defeating the strongest section of the organised working class there was a great focus on the numbers on strike.

Like so much else about that struggle, this has left a legacy, such that the Local Government Association are focusing very much upon the number of local government employees reported to have been on strike by their employers last Wednesday and Thursday – and are very happy to report that the percentage is low. Their figures clearly massively understate the numbers on strike, but it is difficult from a practical point of view for the unions to issue effective data to rebut the employers because we lack the organisation necessary to collect and publish such data swiftly and credibly. However, these numbers do not in any case tell the whole story.

Obviously the numbers of people taking strike action must be one important measure of the effectiveness of strike action, as must the (separate but not unrelated) number of people not at work. However, going back to the miners, what mattered was not how many miners were on strike but how many pits were closed and how much coal was dug. Therefore another important dimension of the effectiveness of a strike in local government is the impact on service provision, in terms of services closed and services disrupted.

This is perhaps the single most important measure of effectiveness since it relates to the function and purpose of local authorities (the delivery of public services) and is of the same order of importance as the impact of private sector strike action on profitability (the function and purpose of a private company). However, this too is not the whole picture.

Whereas in the private sector the ultimate determinant of management strategy is the search for profit, in the public sector management has no such single goal. The objectives of a public sector organisation are politically determined and those in charge of the organisation are ultimately susceptible to political rather than economic pressure. Therefore what might be peripheral elements of a successful strike against a private company (such as media coverage, expressions of public sympathy and support, petitions, letter-writing, Early Day Motions, general political lobbying etc.) are much more significant in a public sector dispute.

These things matter because the politicians who hold the purse strings which, if loosened, would settle a public sector pay dispute are beholden not to shareholders at an Annual General Meeting but – eventually – to voters in an election. (I should probably point out that there are factors which tend to make public sector employers behave like private sector employers and that the similarities between industrial relations across the two sectors are at least as important as their differences, but that doesn’t matter too much for the purposes of this post).

Therefore, to return to the second question (which I said I would answer first) I think the answer to how to measure the effectiveness of the national local government pay strike is to look at a number of different factors, as best we can on the basis of the data we can get hold of. These are;
The numbers on strike;
The numbers not at work;
The number and nature of services closed;
The number and nature of services disrupted;
The extent and nature of media coverage;
The extent and nature of expressions of public and political support.

Also, given that the dispute needs to influence the thinking and behaviour of politicians it matters enormously whether we appear to be able to repeat such political harm as we may already have caused them.

So, how effective was last week’s strike action? I want to spend a little time trying to gather better evidence but my initial view would be that the numbers actually on strike, whilst lower than we would have liked by a long way, were – in the context of the numbers not at work – sufficient to achieve a significant disruption to services which provided the focus for some positive media coverage and the mobilisation of further political support.

Overall therefore, the action seems to me to have been effective and worthwhile, though it will take a little more time for the picture to become clearer. As to the critical question of whether, and if so how and when, we can take further action to exert political pressure on our employers, I think that this depends to some extent upon the debate which now needs to take place among rank and file UNISON (and UNITE) members.

The question which those of us who need a fair pay rise in local government have to ask of ourselves and our colleagues is – what shall we do next?

Time to think

There are a number of questions which UNISON activists in local government need to be debating right at the moment, in the aftermath of last week’s strike action.

What was the effectiveness of our action and how is it to be measured?

What ought our objectives in this dispute now to be and how shall we attempt to achieve them?

What are the likely moves from the employers’ side and how should we prepare ourselves to respond to these?

Discussing these questions presupposes a willingness to discuss some deeper and more abstract underlying questions (such as; What is the current role of the trade unions in collective bargaining over pay? How do we build our trade union at the present time? What is the nature of our relationship with the local government employers (and behind them the Government) and how do we apply pressure to shift them?)

There are also more practical and concrete questions which lead forward from the questions set out above (such as; What action do we take next? What is the relative priority between urgency and unity with other unions? Should we debate the merits of selective as against all-out action? What political campaigning should be undertaken and how should this be integrated into the dispute?)

There is a hazard to having these debates in public, which is that the employers can see what we are talking about. Having just come back from the Tolpuddle Martyrs festival the fundamental conflict of interests between employers and employed in a capitalist society is very much on my mind, and I would rather that our discussions could take place purely between ourselves.

However “ourselves” means not just the dozens who serve on national or Regional Committees of our Union, nor the thousands who serve on Branch Committees and stood on picket lines, nor even the many many thousands who took strike action last week. All these groups are important (the active supporters of the strike most of all) but “we” in the context of this dispute are local government workers.

We have no option but to have our discussion in the open. I hope that branches will be timetabling meetings over the coming days and calling for Regional meetings in the very near future so that this discussion can take place through the official channels of the Union.

I also hope that discussion will take place through unofficial and informal channels, such as all the various UNISON activist and office-holder blogs, and the new unofficial local government worker email discussion group.

Last week was the time for action, this week is the time for discussion.

Strike for Fair Pay

As of a little while ago I am on strike for 48 hours.

Lambeth being Lambeth we have already made an impact on the Royal Family!

I am as proud of our activists – who have been having the hard arguments with our members to go on strike – as I am irritated by the excuses for strike breaking which are always wheeled out.

For the moment – needing some rest before getting up for picket duty – all I shall say is good luck. Good luck to every striker and to every picket.

Our cause is just (and the case for action is persuasive) and we must prevail.

But – to be honest – there comes a point in a strike when nothing matters beyond the simple fact of choosing sides.

For the employers – or for the Union. For the bosses or for the workers.

I’m for the Union. I’m for the workers.

But if you have not yet worked that out then you have been mixing me up with someone else…

Good luck to everyone reading this who is on strike.

And to anyone breaking the strike – shame on you!

London strike rally Wednesday 16 July

Thanks to the work of our Regional Office, arrangements are in hand for a march and rally on the first day of strike action this week. The details are as follows;

WEDNESDAY 16 JULY 2008

1PM ASSEMBLE LINCOLN INN FIELDS, OFF REMNANT STREET (Holborn)

1.30PM MARCH FROM LINCOLN INN FIELDS

2PM –RALLY @ FRIENDS MEETING HOUSE, EUSTON RD (Euston)

Speakers to include:

Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, UNISON
Jack Dromey. Deputy General Secretary, UNITE
Kevin Courtney, Branch Secretary & NEC NUT
PCS speaker invited

See you there!

Preparing for the strike

The most important thing for Unison activists in local government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland over the next two days is to persuade the maximum number of our members to strike on Wednesday and Thursday.

For all the different reasons that people give for not wanting to strike - the most important question is always whether trade unionists believe that the union can win a better deal through the sacrifice of strike action.

Therefore I am boring members of my branch by going on about the lesson from 1989 and 2002 - which is that national local government strike action can work.

There are however some important practical steps which can be taken.
I am pleased that my local branch has worked with our employer to secure their confirmation to staff that they do not ask staff to cross our picket lines - and to managers that they are not expected to encourage strike breaking.

This helps to isolate any rogue reactionary managers and to give confidence to new staff in particular to do the right thing.

I am also pleased that colleagues in the other local unions have agreed a joint appeal to all trade unionists not to cross picket lines. This helps those fellow trade unionists who want to support us.

There remains the question of hardship - and I am glad that Unison has issued some guidance (albeit it could be better worded) - I am also impressed to hear that some branches have already agreed with their employers to defer making deductions until the dispute is settled, a good idea which should be taken up more widely.

Circulating detailed information about deductions which will be made - also about the impact on pensions - and about the benefit of various possible settlements of the dispute is certainly worthwhile.

Good luck everybody.

Everybody out! (except...)

One of the many weird things about organising a strike in local government is the process of exemption.

Although we are trying to disrupt, if not close, all local authority services in England Wales and Northern Ireland next week we don’t want anyone to die or suffer serious injury as a result.

Not even Gordon Brown…

Or Sandy Bruce-Lockhart…

Therefore, since you cannot rely on the deadbeats and selfish oafs who haul themselves across picket lines to do any proper work, we do have to consider “exempting” some of our members from the strike call in order to ensure we safeguard “life and limb”.

This invariably means that – as a Branch Secretary – I have to spend some time in the run up to any major strike debating with the employer who we won’t call out.

I have been engaged in this odd process, on and off, for the last few days, and my point in blogging about it is that the Regional Office (whose approval is required) turned round the request from my local authority (and accompanying recommendations from the local UNISON branch) in just over an hour this afternoon.

Since I am the first to criticise the official machinery of the Union when the occasion demands I think it is worth saying that it is helpful to get such a prompt response to what could be a tricky issue.

No, knowing that we have done what we reasonably can to safeguard life and limb, we can concentrate on getting the maximum response to the strike call.

Prentis condemns Brown Government without regret...

My apologies to regular readers (Sid and Doris Blogger) for intermittent blogging for the next little while – but we do have a lot on at work!

This may also delay my report of an interesting meeting Wednesday of UNISON’s Development and Organisation Committee which had a full agenda addressing proposals to introduce annual assessments for branches and to restructure (or even abolish) our Service Group structures – and receiving a report from Staffing Committee Chair, Bob Oram on the changes being made among our staff.

More on all of that later.

In the few moments I now have I would just like to let you know about Wednesday’s meeting of UNISON’s TUC delegation, which will be the only meeting of the delegation before Congress.

(Last year’s controversial proposal to replace the second delegation meeting – previously held to consider approving amendments to motions on the Congress agenda – with a “virtual meeting” has now become a proposal to delegate the approval of amendments to the NEC Policy Committee who will themselves have a “virtual meeting”).

The new approach to soliciting motions for consideration by the delegation from the “constituent bodies” of the delegation had achieved exactly the result hoped for by its protagonists – and I was able to salute the farsighted wisdom of the Policy Committee who had been able to ensure that, in choosing three motions for submission to the TUC, the delegation meeting had three motions to choose from.

When questioned about the new procedure, the Chair of Policy, Jane Carolan, gave a robust defence of the new approach, forcefully reminding my NEC colleague Glenn Kelly that the NEC had endorsed this new approach but also stating that this had the assent of the Regional Convenors. Since not a single Region had brought forward a proposed motion for the TUC, UNISON members may wish to enquire of their Regional Convenor about how and why they supported the new approach.

Activists whose major focus is on the work of our national Service Groups and Self-Organised Groups (also, along with Young Members, “constituent bodies” of the TUC delegation) may also want to ask a few questions. In general, now that the leadership of the Union have turned over the stone under which the unwritten “rules” governing UNISON’s relationship with the TUC had been left since vesting day it may be timely for activists to turn our attention to improving the accountability and transparency of our TUC work in general.

That is for the future.

Yesterday we agreed the three motions which were put before us – although thankfully with some amendments.

A worthy if somewhat anodyne motion on the National Health Service will, I hope, be strengthened and improved by further work to be undertaken between the Chair of the Health Service Group and the Chair of Policy prior to submission to the TUC. Since the Government’s sixtieth birthday present to the NHS is the threat of marketisation, we can anticipate a major composite motion from health unions which will be based upon the UNISON motion.

The second motion was on public sector pay, I suggested that the word “notes” (in relation to the Government’s public sector pay policy) needed to be replaced by something stronger. The General Secretary agreed and suggested the word “condemns” which seems to hit the mark rather better. Rather than wonder about how the weaker form of words got as far as the delegation meeting, what matters now is that this motion should form the basis for a strong composite calling (once more) on the TUC to coordinate the campaigns of the public sector unions. Delegates were critical of the absence of coordination to date – although Dave Prentis made the fair point that the TUC could not coordinate the trade unions if they did not want to be coordinated. I can see the problem – suppose a couple of large unions in an industry did a deal with the Government behind the back of other Unions – that would be a problem. Perhaps this year’s TUC President should have a word with the General Secretary of the second largest affiliate about that matter…

The third motion which we agreed was on public services and I was pleased that my suggestion that we needed something other than “regrets” in relation to the Government’s continued privatisation of our public services was accepted. However, the General Secretary didn’t want us to use “condemns” twice and so the Chair of Policy said she would get a Thesaurus out in order to come up with something stronger. Perhaps we can be marked down for poor use of English by the General Purposes Committee if we over utilise the same verbs in our TUC submissions? (Although I think the National Union of Teachers would probably let us off writing out one hundred times “I must not condemn the Government twice in one Congress”…)

I am afraid that I missed this opportunity to burst into a rendition of “Je Ne Regrette Rien” although I did take the opportunity to point something out to the many people in the room who had backed Gordon Brown – rather than John McDonnell – for Labour Leader and who might, if their comments at the time are to be taken at face value, have believed that Brown would be better than Blair (and thus genuinely “regret” that he is not).

I didn’t say anything particularly clever or eloquent but it was something I wanted to get off my chest.

I said; “I told you so.”

Seeking support for local government workers

As we gear up for the strike action on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, involving 600,000 UNISON members (and 60,000 members of UNITE) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the word has gone out to cancel all non-essential meetings.

The NEC Committee meetings (and TUC delegation meeting) taking place on Wednesday are not among those non-essential meetings to be cancelled – and rightly so (although why it should be that the Leeds branch of all people were told that the Development and Organisation Committee wasn’t meeting I don’t know!)

We have to have a TUC delegation meeting to agree our motions for the TUC Congress in September – although a new “streamlined” procedure for agreeing motions should speed the process up no end…

Since the Greater London Region (in common I should imagine with many other “constituent bodies” of our TUC delegation) did not have enough notice to arrange a meeting to discuss submitting TUC motions, I haven’t had the opportunity to be involved in any discussion of what motions to submit.

I should imagine the NEC Policy Committee (of which I am not a member) will agree some recommendations to put to the delegation meeting. With the largest bargaining group in the entire economy involved in strike action, I hope that UNISON will formally put the local government pay disputes on the Congress agenda.

Further Education pay offer

I am indebted to the activists from among UNISON’s Further Education membership who have drawn to my attention the consultation exercise which is now underway in relation to the miserable pay offer for our members in that sector.

The employers have made a poor offer which is slightly less poor than the offer against which we are taking strike action in local government.

We are to embark upon a consultation ballot of our members in further education over the summer holidays (when many will be away from the workplace and the opportunity for collective discussion) on the basis that this is the best that can be obtained by negotiation (which I am sure it is).

Full marks to our negotiators for achieving the best that can be achieved by negotiation.

Mind you I cannot remember ever having been consulted on a negotiated offer which was not thought, at the time of the consultation, to be the best that could be achieved by negotiation.

Our sister union UCU has agreed to convene a Conference to consider the offer. This at least allows for collective decision-making in line with the best traditions of our movement.

Of course I respect the decision of the National Further Education Committee. They have decided that there shall be an individual ballot of our members.

UNISON Conference has very recently reaffirmed the right of Regions and Branches to make and campaign for recommendations in pay ballots.

I also respect the right of Regions and Branches to get out there and campaign for rejection of this lousy pay offer.

A great trade unionist once told me something he was told by his father - that if you fight you may not win, but if you don’t fight you certainly won’t win.

There is more money to be had by public sector workers, in further education as in local government and health. Whether we get it depends upon what we do, how well organised we are and how we are led.

Islington 1 - North West Region 0

I am not a delegate to the Labour link forum taking place today and tommrow in Newcastle despite my best efforts, however I was pleased to here from my source on the seen that the North West Region withdrew its proposals to get rid of directly elected seats for the Labour Link National Committee. I am sure it is no coincidence that this was proposed after last years Labour Link elections saw number of seats contested in different regions by left candidates. One even won with another elected unopposed.

The withdrawing of the motion was essentially forced by the passing of amendment 63.02 to motion 63 at National delegate’s conference which included the following points

“Conference welcomes the turnout in the last APF (Labour Link) National committee elections which was relatively high in comparison with recent National Executive and Service Group Elections, conference recognises the importance the use of all APF payer ballots on a regional basis for electing the APF committee.”

And

“also include in the review the set up of the two national political committees and consider expanding the directly elected seats and reducing the indirectly elected seats to the National APF (Labour Link) committee;”

Clearly the passing of such a motion would have unambiguously Contradicted National Policy and had to be withdrawn. I don’t normally gloat but I might just a little bit on this occasion.

Taking sides in defence of a sacked activist

I was appalled – though not surprised – to hear that UNISON activist Yunus Bakhsh had been sacked by his employer following a disciplinary hearing at which he was not well enough to attend.

I won’t go in here to the details of every aspect of Yunus’ case. For one thing UNISON has an outstanding appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal against a decision of the Certification Officer than the Union had unlawfully suspended Yunus from his trade union positions.

I’ll have more to say about that later.

I am not writing this post right now to comment on disputes within the Union.

There are sometimes disputes within the Union – but I strongly believe that when the employer attacks an activist you close ranks. That’s what we should do now.

People who are familiar with the history of the Lambeth branch of UNISON in recent years will know that myself and other officers of that branch closed ranks when one of our activists was attacked a few years ago.

We did so in spite of profound disagreements over tactics, in spite of well-founded criticisms of the conduct of that activist (later substantiated and supported by an independent public inquiry) and in spite of facing what we believed to be (and I believe have been shown to have been) entirely unjustified allegations against ourselves and the Union.

When our branch activist was dismissed by the employer (having failed to accept the advice of branch officers and having made unwarranted attacks upon the Union) we worked with a dedicated and effective Regional Officer to submit an application to the employment tribunal for interim relief.

We did this because we knew which side we were on.

When it came to the crunch, in a dispute between the employer and a union activist, we took sides. We did not allow our political disagreements or personal criticisms to get in the way of supporting a fellow trade unionist who needed our support.

The application for interim relief was not successful – perhaps it was a long shot – but we made it and we were right to make it.

Now Yunus Bakhsh has been sacked – and every trade unionist faces a similar choice.

Are we on the side of the sacked trade unionist or the side of the employer who has dismissed him? (For trade unionists there is a right answer and a wrong answer to this question and there simply is no middle ground).

Defending workers rights and civil liberties

This rather depressing story about an over zealous approach to preventing people with criminal records even training for work in public service jumped out at me because I have been working with an even more diligent colleague at branch level to try to get our employer to reconsider a similarly mechanical approach to requesting Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks.

UNISON’s guidance on this is as helpful as it was when it was produced four years ago. To quote from the guidance “it is estimated that at least 20% of the working population has a criminal record. Many of them have difficulty finding work if their past convictions become known, even if their past record has no bearing on the job they are applying for.”

I imagine many public sector employers think that it is best to “err on the side of caution” by requesting more and more detailed CRB checks than they really need – but this approach discourages job applicants with criminal records from even applying for roles for which they may be perfectly well suited (and undermines the objective of promoting the rehabilitation of ex-offenders).

We are thereby in danger of excluding from employment in public services millions of individuals who may once have done something wrong. Since most of the Parliamentary Labour Party voted for the Iraq war (a more serious crime than those committed by most of the fifth of working people who have a criminal record) perhaps we should apply the same principles in the Palace of Westminster?

Meanwhile in the private sector the controversial National Dismissal Register may deny employment to staff who are merely suspected of wrongdoing and then placed on a register by their former employer.

The Government are refusing to get involved and denying responsibility yet the website of the outfit behind the register has the Home Office logo on it! The press release launching this dubious initiative is online and includes contact information for those promoting this sinister scheme.

At the risk of being accused of being old fashioned I could point out that the profits made by private sector employers are all of them stolen from the labour of the workers in the first place. So if we really wanted a database of the biggest thieves in the country it would be a list of the largest private sector employers…

Of course if we allow this sort of approach to take root it will lead back to the practices of the Economic League and to trade union activists being denied work.

Socialists defend the interests of working people and particularly those groups who face particular oppression or discrimination. That means sticking up for minorities whether or not they are popular – and the (large) minority of workers with criminal records are entitled to expect our support.

All of which goes to show (in my fairly predictable opinion) why we need Labour MPs who actually believe in Labour principles and will stick up for the interests of workers. (As opposed to grandstanding Tories...)

No such thing as a free lunch?

One optimistic reading of the story in today’s Guardian – that UNISON’s key demand upon the Government is an extension of free school meals – is that we wish to intervene in the education of children in order to contest the received economic wisdom reflected in the title of this post.

I shall resist drawing too many judgements until I have verified the reports, but I am struck by the absolute necessity for the review of UNISON’s political funds as called for by our National Delegate Conference, which – thanks to the successful amendment from the NEC – is intended “to scrutinise and reform operations and functional processes to ensure the highest levels of transparency, participation and activity.” With luck we will be able to work out how the apparent priority for our Labour Party intervention has been set in the light of the agreed policies of our Union.

Our Conference agreed some key policy priorities just a couple of weeks ago. Under our Rules, UNISON Labour Link is not, of course, directly accountable to our Conference. However, Conference has previously expressed the view that there should be “an appropriate degree of accountability between the APF and the union's structures at branch, regional and national levels.”

Therefore, some of the demands agreed at Conference, in relation to (for example) economic policy or trade union rights, might be taken to be the priorities which our Union ought to pursue when an opportunity to influence the Party of Government presents itself to us. UNISON Labour Link should take these priorities into account when deciding upon demands to place upon a Labour Government.

I do not mean to denigrate the importance of free school meals (no one who spends time making packed lunches would do that). Adequate nutritious school meals are vital to the education of our children. But if we have decided that this is our number one demand of the Government at the present time, how and by whom was this decision taken?

If, as the Guardian suggests, we have pitched demands at a level which we don’t think will benefit the Tories (because they are so gentle that New Labour can accept them without too much trouble) then who decided that this was a wise strategy? There are others out here who want a fourth term Labour Government and believe that the only slender chance for this is if the Party takes a dramatic turn towards the interests of its supporters. The progressive policy agenda set by UNISON Conference is probably the only hope for a Labour Government in 2010 – but if UNISON Labour Link won’t push wholeheartedly and enthusiastically for that agenda what chance will we have?

There are those who want the review of the political funds to be a debate about whether we build, here and now, a political alternative to the Labour Party. Perhaps I have contracted poverty of aspiration from too close association with those determining the policies of UNISON Labour Link, but my personal objective is less dramatic.

I would just like to know why we fail time and again to make any effective use of our relationship with the Labour Party, and whether there are enough UNISON members who care about this to find a way to do something about it.

Otherwise, we’ll be selling our birthright for a mess of mashed potato…

UNISON agrees to review our political fund

The useful UNISON Conference database is obviously still being updated as this link does not (yet?) take you to Motion 63 (as amended), which was the motion around which National Delegate Conference spent much of its Friday afternoon.

I have made some general comment already about the wider political context of this debate, but I think it is worth being clear about what was agreed by the Conference following this debate. There have been other comments on the debate – some measured and responsible and some plain daft. Before considering some other Conference decisions I thought I should clarify what the outcome of the debate on Friday afternoon was (as opposed to how it felt).

Conference has instructed the National Executive Council to “carry out a full review of the political fund arrangements involving the affiliated political fund, general political fund, service groups, self organised groups, regions and branches, to scrutinise and reform operations and functional processes to ensure the highest levels of transparency, participation and activity and to report to Conference on this.”
Also thanks to an amendment from the Islington branch supported in a last minute U turn by the NEC, Conference has instructed the NEC to “include in the review, regional APF (Labour Link) structures and operation” and “also include in the review the set up of the two national political committees and consider expanding the directly elected seats and reducing the indirectly elected seats to the National APF (Labour Link) committee.”

In another last minute U turn the NEC also supported an amendment from Somerset County which reminded Conference of the decision taken three years ago to instruct the NEC to publish the voting record of the UNISON group of MPs. (I think that my NEC colleagues had better get on with the proper implementation of this particular decision before someone else embarrasses us by doing it for us!)

The two NEC U turns on these amendments were classics of their kind. At the NEC before Conference attempts from the left to secure support for these sensible amendments were knocked back. Labour Link Chair Steve Warwick notably commented in respect of the Somerset amendment that he knew what the Somerset County branch were like! Looking down at an angry Conference floor discretion rapidly became the better part of valour.

(As Rodney didn’t say ten years ago – if it looks like a chicken and it clucks like a chicken…)

Since the UNISON NEC has decided not to meet until October, the implementation of this decision will probably fall to the Objective Three Scrutiny Group. There may be some who will wish to give the implementation of this decision relatively low priority.

I hope they don’t prevail since from every point of view a real and thorough review of the effectiveness of our political funds would be a good thing. Obviously those who want to see disaffiliation will wish to express that view – but those of us who want the Labour Link to be more effective also have a vested interest in an effective review.

It would take a truly heroic refusal to face reality to view the decision of Conference to prioritise Motion 63 for debate as anything other than a vote of no confidence in the current conduct of the Labour Link – those who supported the NEC amendment did not do so by and large because they believe that we are getting what we should out of our relationship with the Labour Party.

There are structural problems (such as the method of election of our Regional Labour Link Committee, which was undemocratic when the Committee was on the left and remains undemocratic now that it is not). The most important problem though is political not structural.

Nominating Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership was craven stupidity. We have achieved precisely nothing as a result. Those who promoted this decision are notably silent at the moment, which is the most sense they have made politically for some time.

Rank and file UNISON members do not have to remain silent about the Union’s political work however. The review of our political funds which Conference has decided must now take place will be an opportunity for us to reconsider our approach to political campaigning.

Since branches, Regions et al will be involved in this review it is entirely sensible to start putting motions now to branch meetings and Regional Councils with proposals for how to participate in this review when, as it has been instructed to, the NEC sets out to involve other parts of the Union in the review.

If any of the supporters of Gordon Brown on the National Labour Link Committee would like to debate the way forward, you know where to find me comrades.

Conference Rule Amendment on legal assistance

It seems that my earlier optimism about the UNISON Conference database may have been premature, since the link to the rule amendment on the qualifying period for legal assistance is also not working (yet).

Other UNISON bloggers have reported on this as it was agreed, or commented since (accurately or otherwise) but it is an important decision and merits some further comment.

With effect from the end of this year’s National Delegate Conference, UNISON members need only four, rather than thirteen, weeks’ membership under their belt before having the full entitlement to legal assistance which is available to full members of the Union.

This rule amendment was put by the National Executive Council (NEC) in 2006 and was roundly defeated. Last year, Croydon branch led the charge and the proposal was only narrowly defeated. This year Glasgow Caledonian University branch won the two thirds majority which was required.

The intention of the rule amendment is to assist recruitment of new members. The core of the opposition to the amendment was the view that we ought not to be in the business of helping those “free riders” who avoid joining the Union until they need our assistance.

I think that the new approach, reflected in the successful rule amendment, is the right approach to suit the environment in which we are organising now, in the twenty first century. Union density in many public sector employers is below 50% - and we have to target employees of private contractors where density may be far lower, and employers overtly hostile.

In these circumstances we need to be able to use all the tools at our disposal as swiftly as possible to defend and promote the interests of our members. It’s no good marching in to an unorganised workplace and signing up the members if we then twiddle our thumbs for three months before taking any necessary legal action.

Now we need to turn our minds to how we subordinate our legal activities to our organising agenda – and whether the current approach of restricting tribunal representation to lawyers really delivers for us.

Legal action may be vital to protect the interests of an individual member, but to advance the collective interests of our members it ought to come a poor third to industrial and political activity. This Rule Change is not a short cut to recruitment and it will only help to build UNISON if we can make UNISON a Union our members want to build.

The Union all over the news!

I was just going to bed when Heather Wakefield appeared on Newsnight speaking up for local government workers and that got me thinking about what we should be doing with this high profile.

Sometimes, clearly, you issue a press release and it gets covered.

Here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and – well you get the point I am sure.

UNISON has the opportunity to maximise media coverage because of the vote by our local government members in favour of strike action over pay in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I’ll be back to this topic again – for now I want to make the point that we need to step up recruitment activity among workers affected by this pay dispute. If you are a local government worker reading this and are not already a member – join now!

Democracy debate at UNISON Conference

Whilst the Conference database on the UNISON website now includes decisions of last week’s National Delegate Conference, the detail of Motion 45 on Democracy in UNISON is not yet up properly (but I am hoping that the link will work soon).

The motion was debated on Thursday afternoon and the outcome of the debate was moderately good for democrats in the Union.

The origins of this motion were, more than anything else, in the dissatisfaction felt by the Scottish health branches at the absurdity of the attempts in 2007 to threaten disciplinary action against branches making recommendations in a pay ballot in which the national leadership had refused to make a recommendation.

The main motion called for a review of UNISON’s democratic processes and an amendment from Lambeth which made it on to the agenda (as other amendments did not) sought to reinforce the rights of branches and other UNISON bodies (and members) to campaign, including making their own recommendations in such circumstances.

The NEC agreed to support (with qualifications) the amendment from the Lambeth branch, which was accepted by the Scottish Region in moving the main motion. The motion, as amended, passed overwhelmingly.

The NEC accepted that branches have the right to campaign (which is a significant step forward from where we were last year!) However, the majority of my NEC colleagues would probably endorse the qualification expressed by Chris Tansley, which is that the NEC don’t think that individual members of Service Group Executives should be permitted to campaign against SGE decisions.

There will now be a review of our democratic processes and activists need to engage with this review in order to press home the point about the rights of branches, and also to debate the question of “collective responsibility” as it applies to members elected to leadership bodies. I think it is reasonable to expect members of a Committee to explain the decisions of the Committee when reporting back, whether or not they agreed with them. However – as regular readers of this blog may realise – I also think it is OK to express personal opinions.

As busy as we should and will be fighting the Government’s pay freeze it is important that we do not take our eye off the ball of union democracy. I shall comment further after the meeting of the NEC Development and Organisation Committee on 9 July.

Adrift in a political storm?

The Conference database is online – so you can check out decisions from last week in Bournemouth as it is updated. I have been thinking a bit about the political context within which our discussions took place.

From one perspective the week at UNISON Conference saw a series of debates take place in which there was an underlying theme of delegates questioning the link with the Labour Party – and this theme finally found clear expression in a debate on the Friday afternoon in which the Conference narrowly accepted an NEC amendment to a motion from the Bromley branch in what was seen as a rebuff to those seeking disaffiliation from the Labour Party.

I think that this perspective sees less than a quarter of what was going on at Conference. The anger which certainly exists amongst UNISON activists is directed primarily against the Government and, for some, secondarily against our own leadership who are seen as not doing enough.

There are those who are angry with the Government and yet supportive of the leadership – and amongst those who are critical of the leadership there are advocates of disaffiliation, but also many (including many Labour Party members) who do not want to break the link with the Party but rather to use it more effectively. (Indeed the NEC would not have won their amendment on Friday afternoon without the support on this occasion of some of those critics, notably from the Scottish Health branches).

The long standing crisis of political representation of the working class becomes more pronounced with each passing year, and is expressed not only in the distance between the Labour Party in Government and millions of trade union members, but also in the withering connection between the experience of the millions and the articulation of that experience on our behalf by our leadership.

The anger expressed by Conference delegates was the product of the frustration of ordinary members experiencing a pay freeze in the context of privatisation, job insecurity, spiralling workloads and a workplace culture in which bullying is seen in too many cases as good and effective management practice.

This frustration on the part of hundreds of thousands of our members is given voice as anger by hundreds of activists particularly when we do not hear our leadership articulating these feelings unless they are gift wrapped in warm words about the many good things for which we have to thank the Government.

Time after time delegates came to the rostrum to express this anger and frustration, but the process whereby the agenda was constructed had left few points at which Conference could be invited to take a decision to express an opinion about the causes of this crisis – or about how the Union should respond in a general way.

When we got to Friday afternoon we had a motion which called not for disaffiliation but for a review of our political funds reporting back to Conference with a view towards a ballot of our members, which was amended by the NEC, not to express opposition to disaffiliation but to change the nature of the review which is now to take place. (The drafters of what was reasonably called a “wrecking amendment” may have intended when writing it to bury the review but politics has moved on and this will not now be possible.)

The NEC amendment was carried fairly narrowly with a majority of 60,000 on a card vote. The importance of the vote itself was largely symbolic and may have left a number of my NEC colleagues travelling home from Bournemouth feeling somehow vindicated in the political leadership which they may believe that they have been giving to our Union. This would almost certainly be unwise – it is certainly unjustified.

The political context in which UNISON Conference took place is one in which the candidate backed enthusiastically by our Union leadership for the leadership of the Labour Party has, as Prime Minister, turned out if anything to be worse for our members than his predecessor. The response of the Labour Party leadership to catastrophic election results, which almost certainly presage a Tory Government, has been to cling to the mantra of “modernisation” which means an intensification of the pressures giving rise to anger and frustration at the base of our Union.

The very limited material basis for a policy of rapprochement with the Labour leadership in return for occasional concessions and modest redistribution, which has been the hallmark of the past eleven years, is vanishing from beneath the feet not just of UNISON’s leadership but of the leadership of the TUC.

In these circumstances delegates could reasonably have expected to come to Conference to debate an Emergency Motion from the NEC on the outcome of the May elections and to be given a clear indication of a new direction for our Union to build our strength to defend our members against Governments of either colour and to campaign for our policies in a determined and energetic fashion, building alliances with those who agree with us rather than giving succour to those who do not.

Unfortunately all we were ever going to have was a statement from the NEC – and then we did not even have that. At Conference, the NEC was presented, at our 8.30am meeting on Wednesday, with what appeared to be an unfinished draft of a statement obviously based upon the earlier drafting of a motion which had subsequently been abandoned. Although titled – rather boldly – a “Plan of Political Action” it was in fact a rather short shopping list of demands to place upon the Government which did not even go as far as Conference policy already had.

As a sop to the floor of Conference it would have been a disaster so perhaps it is just as well that when the NEC was informed on the following morning (as if we had not always known) that under our Rules such a statement could neither be amended nor debated by Conference this was used as the occasion for the NEC to refer this sad little statement to our own Policy Committee meeting in July rather than embarrass ourselves by showing it to Conference.

In the absence of a keynote political intervention from the leadership of the Union, the simmering anger of the Conference was channelled into fairly sterile knockabout shadow boxing about the Labour Link, distinguished by anonymous red-baiting leaflets on the Conference floor and ersatz anger from our Deputy General Secretary.

Why, in these most difficult of times, is UNISON drifting rudderless into the coming political storm? I’ll be sure to ask at the next NEC meeting, just as soon as there is one…

Pining for an NEC meeting...

UNISON’s National Executive Council (NEC) – of which I am a member – is supposed to run the Union in between meetings of our Conference. In previous years the NEC has met in July and, as part of that meeting, has received a report noting the decisions of Conference and confirming to which of its Committees it is referring the implementation of those decisions.

This year, for the first time, the NEC will not meet after Conference until October, as a result of an earlier decision of the NEC itself (which I did not support).

Conference has agreed, by accepting Motion 63 as amended to review the operation of our political funds, yet the NEC as a whole will not have an opportunity to express an opinion about how to implement this decision until October. NEC members who are not members of that august body “the Objective 3 Scrutiny Group” may have little involvement.

Conference has agreed, by accepting Motion 45 as amended, to instruct the NEC to review our democratic processes and to report back to Conference 2009 - such a report would need to be concluded by February and the NEC as a whole will not be able to consider this matter at all until just four months before that deadline.

The work being carried out to review our branch and service group structures, following last year's Conference decision will be discussed by the Development and Organisation Committee in July, but not (as things stand) by the whole NEC until October at the earliest.

There will be no opportunity for the NEC as a whole to discuss or agree a timely contribution to the SOC Review of Conference, a great shame in the light of the interesting comments of the Chair of SOC in introducing SOC Report No. 2.

Overall, I think that many members would consider that the NEC are abdicating our responsibility to the membership by failing to meet - except to deal with Conference business at Conference - for four months between our June and October meetings.

I have commented recently about how it seems to me that the role of the NEC is being undermined at present. I have a bit of a sense of our Union as somewhat rudderless – it is the responsibility of our NEC to do something about this, and I hope that we will accept that responsibility and not leave it to a range of smaller and less accountable bodies.

Back from Conference

There are also a lot of official reports of the Conference which were coming out promptly during the Conference week. UNISON’s use of electronic communications is beginning to catch up with the twenty first century! It is a shame that there were not more television screens on which to watch the Conference around the Centre, as this makes it easier to do the necessary networking and other work without missing out on Conference debates.

With the benefit of hindsight of the week as a whole I will make some belated comments on particular debates over the next few days as I find the time, with a view to thinking about what UNISON activists need to do now in the light of the decisions which we have taken at our Conference.

Before I start thinking about the broader political lessons of the week, I’ll start with some observations about Conference procedure. The Standing Orders Committee (SOC) will be having their annual review of Conference – although the NEC won’t be able to make a collective contribution having decided not to meet now until October (about which more later). Regions will be consulted and branches who want to make their voices heard should check with their Region how the Region will be responding (but could also contact SOC members directly I am sure).

SOC – Pre-Conference procedure

SOC themselves need to address the problems reflected in the large proportion of motions ruled out of order – which in a small number of cases SOC recognised by changing their minds before and during Conference week. The Chair of SOC in introducing the second SOC report on Tuesday morning suggested that efforts might be made to find a way of giving advice to branches on how to ensure that motions and Rule Amendments are in order. As a colleague from the London Region said to me on Monday evening, UNISON provides training to help our activists in almost every area of Union activity, with the exception of training and assistance in the governance of the Union.

If SOC met in December (say) they could consider motions submitted well ahead of the Conference deadline and, where these were ruled out of order, could give some general advice about how the movers might seek to achieve their objectives without being ruled out. This would only formalise and make more helpful the informal advice which is already given (although I have experience of submitting motions based upon informal advice given one year only to see them ruled out of order the following year…)

As I have observed before, the rulings of SOC have become more restrictive year on year. Debates which we had in the past (about the election of officials for example) would not now be permitted and – each year – new categories of “out of order” motions seem to arise. It is clear that SOC believe that the endorsement of an SOC report by Conference one year reflects a real and binding acceptance of their rulings, rather than simply a pragmatic and slightly weary attempt to get on with as much debate as is possible in unsatisfactory circumstances. Conference is supposed to run the Union, not to be an extended rally at which delegates debate motions supported by the NEC whilst making speeches critical of the leadership. Branches who are dissatisfied with the way things are going should engage with SOC over the coming year – it is no good waiting until we get to Conference next year to express our disappointment.

Rostrum Control and Speakers Lists
The procedures around rostrum control need to be reviewed if comments which I heard from a number of different delegates are to be believed. Keeping speakers lists for contentious debates is an accepted practice which has dramatically reduced squabbles at the front of the Conference about who is speaking when. However the practice only works if there is confidence that speakers are listed in the order in which their names are given in. Such confidence can easily (and probably quite unjustifiably) be shaken – particularly when there are very obvious attempts to “carve out” certain speakers…

Before I was elected to the NEC I was often involved in “floor organising” at Conference and – as a general rule – I found that the process of selecting speakers at UNISON Conference was fair and even (once you understood it) transparent. It would be a great shame if delegates came to believe that this had ceased to be the case.

Conference bulletins
Accepting that I may have a slightly jaundiced view on this, I was disappointed that the bulletins produced by the Regions for Conference delegates appear to be becoming increasingly anodyne as the years go by. This year the Young Members decided not to produce a bulletin. The London Region bulletin is a shadow of its former self, there being more controversy on most restaurant menus than in the pages of “London Calling”.

Over the years paid officials, acting on behalf of the NEC have successfully asserted authority over the lay officials, accountable to their Regional Councils and Committees, who produce the Regional bulletins. This is part and parcel of the continuing drive to turn Conference from a debating chamber into a “showcase” for the Union. I am not in favour of controversy for its own sake, and there are important issues on which we have a consensus that deserves to find expression in Conference debate. However, a Conference devoid of controversy would be a pointless event.

It is an amusing irony that dissenting messages have to be spelt out in code in Conference bulletins, but this ought not to be necessary.

Our members don’t, I think, want to bear the cost of a Conference at which we gather primarily to congratulate one another on the foresight and wisdom shown by our lay leadership in doing the bidding of the decisionmakers.

Debate in closed session
One thing that worked well was the closed session on Wednesday morning. Clearly we could have done this last year or the year before – and it is a sensible precaution to take when there is a fear that discussion may place the Union in legal jeopardy.

We should have a private session again next year since issues around Equal Pay won’t have gone away (and if we can debate branch funding for Equal Pay without the world ending we should be able to debate our general policy in the same way?) Of course there should be no live blogging during a closed session.

The cost of our Conference is worth paying if Conference is a genuine occasion for the membership of the Union to hold its leadership to account. However we cannot restore Conference to democratic life during a single week by the seaside.

UNISON members who believe that dissent, debate and disagreement are as much part of our trade union heritage as loyalty and solidarity need to engage, during the coming year with the various reviews which are now taking place, not least the SOC’s review of Conference.

Trade union democracy is for life, not just for Conference…

Local Government Spending and Pay

Today is the first day of UNISON Local Government Conference at which I will be a delegate. I won't try live blogging today. This morning we debate local government spending cuts "efficiency savings", local strategic partnerships and shared services.

This afternoon we turn our attention to local government pay. In classic Conference style everything seems to be in one composite (Composite A) and so it is anyone's guess whether the real differences of opinion which exist within the Union will find expression on the floor of Conference.

Yesterday delegates arrived and had a series of pre-meetings. For me there were two highlights of the London Region delegates' pre-meeting. The first was the contribution from the Fremantle dispute. Maggi and Lango from the Barnet branch gave an impassioned plea for support for their long running fight for justice and against the consequences of privatisation.

The second highlight was - for me - a presentation by Malcolm from the Croydon branch to Jean Geldart, who is retiring as Chair of the Local Government Service Group. Some activists in the Region had taken the opportunity to offer Jean a small token of some of our appreciation for her 37 years of activism.

Jean referred to the Fremantle dispute as an example of the campaigning work of the Union of which she was so proud. I hope that this won't be the last reference to Fremantle during the course of both Local Government and National Delegate Conference.

A good result for European Workers

In the light of this news which is in line with the policies of UNISON and the TUC I just want to point out that my great grandmother came from County Cork and that for the duration of UNISON Conference I shall self-identify as Irish.

A Government which adopted the approach to management of the economy set out in Motion 49 to UNISON National Delegate Conference would rapidly run up against constraints imposed by our membership of the European Union.

The “European project” as it is now is a project to make a polity fit for global capitalism in which even mild social democratic policies are beyond the competence of national Governments. The left needs to find a positive alternative which transcends simple minded Europhobia.

Support the MPs who really deserve it

Rather than pay too much attention to some Tory with apparently genuine libertarian leanings, trade unionists should be supporting and congratulating those Labour MPs who stood up for what was right on Wednesday, rather than what was expedient.

Labour MPs who stood by the best traditions of our movement and did not vote to increase the powers of the state to deny people their liberty faced considerable pressure from the whips. While some serial rebels are pretty much immune to this pressure (or are ignored by the whips now!) others deserve our particular respect for sticking to their guns – and speaking up.

I sent the following message yesterday to members of the UNISON group of MPs who voted against the Government on Wednesday;

“Dear comrades,

I am writing to those members of the UNISON group of Labour MPs who voted last night to oppose the extension of detention without trial to thank you for your courage and determination in doing the right thing for the country, the Party and the labour and trade union movement.

UNISON and the other trade unions have clear policies in support of civil liberties. It is shameful that our Government has acted as it has.

It is only because we can point to principled Parliamentary representatives such as yourselves that those of us within UNISON who believe that the trade unions should continue fighting for our policies within the Party can hold our heads up.

Thank you.”

If you agree that the business of the labour movement should not be to empower the state to restrict our freedoms, why not send a message of support to those of our Parliamentary representatives who stood by us?

If it were not for people prepared to stand up and speak truth to power we would not have a trade union movement – and then all the UNISON delegates on our way to Bournemouth would be going for no more than the beach.

(Although of course if we did not have a trade union movement we wouldn’t have enough time off to go to the beach in the first place…)

And as for those UNISON-linked MPs who thought it more important to try to breath life into the political corpse that is Gordon Brown rather than defend the rights of ordinary people, well perhaps they should be detained in the Conference Centre after we all leave – for 42 days perhaps?

Regional Council highlights problems in London

It was disappointing (if not, perhaps, unexpected) that last Thursday’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council was not quorate. When Geoff Martin was our Regional Convenor we regularly had quorate meetings of the Regional Council in addition to our Annual Meeting.

Since then (correct me if I am wrong) I don’t think we have had a quorum except at the Annual Meeting, which is far better attended than in the past. Last Thursday was no exception to this unfortunate rule.

The meeting nevertheless provided a useful opportunity to hear about the local government pay dispute from Jean Geldart, who is standing down as Chair of UNISON’s Local Government Service Group next week having been a leading figure in UNISON and NALGO for thirty years. An experienced and respected lay leader who can work with, but not under the direction of, paid officials has much to teach some of our leading lights today.

During questions to Jean it came to light that Greater London is one of two Regions to have omitted several non-local authority employers from the strike ballot owing to a misreading of a national circular. This sort of error is unacceptable and this one needs to be addressed urgently.

The meeting then heard from Labour London Assembly member, Joanne McCartney, who was keen to distance the London Labour Group from national policies, and from Jeremy Corbyn who reported from Parliament, including on his opposition to attacks upon our civil liberties.

The final speaker, Ben Thom from Press for Change gave a thorough and interesting overview of the current position in relation to the rights of transgender people in the workplace. It was unfortunate that the Chair refused to permit a representative of the LGBT self-organised group to make a brief announcement about how UNISON activists could carry forward the issues which the speaker had raised – an omission which I hope will be rectified very soon.

The lack of quorate Regional Council meetings is a symptom of the poor health of UNISON’s lay structures in the Region (as is disrespectful treatment of activists). This is, I am sure, a topic which activists will wish to discuss when we gather shortly in Bournemouth. Although should we meet in a coffee bar (or even a bar) to chat about anything at all we must remember that we will be doing so outside the Rules…

Local Government workers - vote YES for strike action!

Rather than cross post the whole thing – here is a link to the Lambeth branch blog post on the strike ballot. Other branches are saying similar things (if rather better technically!).

Let’s all do whatever we can to get the vote out now. The official “Vote YES” leaflet is straightforward and persuasive – give out some more copies today!