Upsetting all the right people...

The strike season started for Lambeth UNISON last Friday with action by our members employed by OFSTED, striking against an appalling pay offer.

I was pleased to spend some time on the picket line and only slightly miffed to hear that the employer thought I had been abusive to strikebreakers!

I wasn’t of course. I am rarely even discourteous and never abusive. I did tell those crossing the picket line that what they were doing was wrong and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps that upset them, but it was and they should have been.

I don't enjoy upsetting people, but sometimes you just have to tell the truth.

Now we need to turn our attention to persuading our members in local government to back UNISON by voting for strike action over local government pay.

The strike ballot in local government, and the consultative ballot in health, together with all the issues which will be coming up at our Conference next month (including branch funding and Union democracy) are among the reasons I have convened a meeting for UNISON activists in the Greater London Region at the University of London Union at 5pm on Thursday 22 May.

With many of us present anyway for the briefing for Branch Treasurers and Secretaries on the funding of the equal pay challenge it seemed like a good opportunity to organise an entirely unofficial meeting for lay activists to take the opportunity of meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern.

I hope that by calling such a meeting I won't have upset anyone...

A positive development for the rights of union members

A little more than a year ago I expressed my concern here at a decision to prevent a UNISON member standing for election to the National Executive Council because they had been suspended from holding office (although at that time they had not been found guilty of any disciplinary offence).

This is what I said in March of last year;

“Suspension is not a disciplinary sanction but a precautionary measure. If UNISON were to interpret our Rules so as to prevent members who are suspended from holding office from standing for election this would deny members the democratic right to nominate and vote for a candidate who has not been found guilty of any offence. It would leave those who decide about such matters vulnerable to the perception that decisions on suspensions were being taken in order to pre-empt Union elections.”

The case has now been decided by the Certification Officer, as UNISON did indeed stand by this questionable interpretation of the Rules and this was challenged. The Certification Officer has found that UNISON breached the law by preventing a member from seeking election to office because they were suspended.

The Certification Officer says, in a judgement which will be published soon;

“First, the right of a union member to stand for election is an important right of membership, as in any democratic organisation, and should not be taken away unless the members have so decided in a clearly expressed rule to that effect. Secondly, at the time that a rule C7.4 suspension is imposed, the member has not been found to have committed a disciplinary offence and it is therefore to be supposed that the suspension is not intended as a penalty.”

I won’t comment further on any other aspects of the case in question at this time, but will observe that – while the Union clearly can appeal this judgement and has previously been successful in appeals against rulings of the Certification Officer – this particular point is straightforward and ought to be accepted. A precautionary suspension ought not to put the person suspended at an avoidable disadvantage, otherwise it amounts to the premature imposition of a disciplinary sanction.

We wouldn’t accept it from the employers and we ought not to have applied it to ourselves. All UNISON members owe a debt to the claimant who pursued this case.

Off to the picket line

I am on my way to the picket line to support striking members of the Lambeth UNISON branch employed by Ofsted.

UNISON members in Ofsted undertake highly demanding jobs – responsible for inspecting childcare, early education and children’s social care, and ensuring that standards are adhered to and millions of young children are cared for safely and properly.

Ofsted has imposed a pay award which leaves most of our members facing a pay freeze or below inflation uplift for three years.

Rising cost of living

· A third of UNISON members are having their salaries frozen for two years – for a quarter the pay freeze is due to last three years! At a time when the cost of living – gas, food, fuel, petrol – has been going through the roof.

· Even where our members have been given a rise, for half of them it amounts to 2% or less at a time when the real cost of living is rising at 4%.

Winners and losers approach bad for morale

All public sector employers have recently been subject to Government restrictions in what they can pay. But in Ofsted a bad situation has been made worse by the decision to give some staff – in more senior grades – increases significantly above inflation. With a limited pot of money to spend that has led to real hardship for the rest. This has been divisive and bad for morale.

The most recent survey of Ofsted staff showed that stress and workplace bullying had risen. It is time management at Ofsted recognised the demanding work ALL their staff perform.

Campaigning for a fair pay increase for all staff

The unions are calling on Ofsted to release funds it has set aside elsewhere and to secure additional monies from the Treasury so that all its hardworking staff can have a fair pay rise. Seems fair enough to me!

Leadership at the Regional Committee...

Today’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee ploughed through a fair bit of business. I will pick out a few important items here.

Industrial action ballots

One point about which I asked was the problem – long identified by the Regional Local Government Executive – of delays in approving requests from branches for industrial action ballots. A meeting between the Regional Secretary and the Chair and Secretary of the Regional Local Government Committee, which was due to take place after the last meeting in March, is still outstanding. The Regional Secretary was able to able to assure the Committee in response to my question that the issue of “perceived delays” would be discussed. I look forward to hearing more…

A number of branches have experience of excessive delays in the processing of requests for industrial action ballots, sometimes leading to the Union achieving a less satisfactory result of our members than if the requests had been dealt with more promptly.

Regional pool applications

I also asked about payments to branches from the Regional Pool to assist in recruitment and organising initiatives. Both of the co-Chairs of the Recruitment and Organisation Committee were swift to respond with assurances that branches should make applications – details are online here (soon to be updated). Branches should consider applying to the Regional Pool in order to provide a shot in the arm to their recruitment activities.

Public sector pay

The debate about public sector pay produced some interesting contributions from supporters of the Regional Council Officers elected in February. While a number of experienced Regional Committee members made balanced contributions reflecting on the challenge which is posed for the Union by the members’ rejection of the local government pay offer – others seemed hostile to strike action almost on principle.

The Deputy Regional Convenor said that health workers would not vote to strike, a view echoed (in relation to low paid members in his own branch) by a fellow Regional Committee member from the health service who was particularly agitated about calls for strike action being made by higher paid health workers, such as nurses. The Regional Finance Convenor reported that his shop were unanimously opposed to strike action, and the Regional Publicity Officer that she would take her mandate from the members of her branch who had voted by a majority to accept the employers’ offer.

Unfortunately none of those making contributions to the debate along these lines offered any suggestions for other strategies which could be adopted in order to prevent the Government and employers forcing through below-inflation pay rises which reduce our members’ living standards. In a lay led trade union those elected to leadership positions need to take their responsibilities a little more seriously.

It was left to Malcolm Campbell of the Croydon branch, in the final contribution of the debate on pay to make the obvious point that those who can least afford to take strike action are often also those who are least able to afford not to take such action. In the absence of any alternative strategy, those repeating the tedious mantra of opposition to strike action advocate by default doing nothing and watching the living standards of our members fall.

The London and local elections

The debate about the outcome of the London elections, kicked off by an overview from the Regional Secretary was also marked by widely divergent opinions.

In relation to the overall results, I expressed the view that the trade unions need to prepare for the unwelcome eventuality of a Conservative Government because – as Sonya Howard from true-blue Kensington and Chelsea pointed out – we have to work with whoever is elected in order to represent our members.

I argued that we should push harder for union policies in our arguments with the Labour Party and Labour Government both because those policies would be more popular – and more likely to lead to the re-election of a Labour Government – and because, if there is a change of Government, we might as well try to get as much as we can beforehand.

The Regional Finance Convenor, a zealous convert to the cause of Labour, felt that I was quite wrong and that the Tories were most unlikely to win the next General Election. He argued that we should avoid calling strikes, lobbies and rallies in order to help to assure this outcome.

As a Labour Party member of some twenty eight years standing I very much want to see a fourth term for the Labour Government rather than the only alternative Government on offer – which would be led by David Cameron. However the first job of a trade union is to stick up for our members. We can do this with industrial or with political action.

The prescription being offered by a number of colleagues today appeared to amount to opposition to industrial action with political action limited to support for the re-election of a Labour Government. I look forward with interest to the coherent articulation of this fascinating project by the Regional lay leadership.

While we are waiting for this I suggest that our priorities must be to campaign for industrial action over pay, and to organise maximum attendance at the TUC lobby of Parliament on 9 June. Those who know only what won’t work and can offer no positive suggestions will best serve the members by quiet contemplation.

Greater (London) expectations of the Regional Committee

Today is that most exciting of days – there is a meeting of the Greater London Regional Committee of UNISON. I have read elsewhere in the blogosphere that great things are now to be expected of this Committee and I therefore hurry towards the meeting full of eager anticipation.

We’ll be discussing recruitment and organisation, of course. I am keen to find out whey the Regional Pool is being so little used these days. A few years ago when myself and Louise Couling were co-Chairs of the Recruitment and Organisation Committee we worked with the then Secretary of the Committee to push substantial sums of money into the hands of branches with good ideas to develop UNISON organisation. It is a shame that this seems to have come to a halt.

We’ll also be discussing pay, of course, the health service, equal pay and – no doubt – the outcome of the London elections. I’ll report here later on about anything of particular interest.

We will also be looking at arrangements for the Regional Council meeting on 5 June, to which branches have submitted very few motions, but which will in all probability be taking place during a national local government strike ballot, at the close of consultation on health service pay and a few days ahead of the TUC lobby of Parliament.

I hope that the Regional Committee will be able to work out how to use the Regional Council meeting to good effect in these circumstances – and that the Regional office and leadership will use their proven skills in encouraging attendance to make sure that our Region pulls its weight in the campaign on public sector pay.

Too easy to please?

In some circumstances it is good to find someone who is easy to please.

Whether trade union members should find this characteristic attractive in their own leaders is another matter…

UNISON welcomes the Government’s legislative programme.

Does it include the repeal of the anti-union laws? No

Does it include a programme of Council house building? No

Does it promise an end to the public sector pay freeze? No

Does it reverse the policies of privatisation? No

Should UNISON’s leadership welcome this programme?

Update on Thursday morning – having looked back over the decisions taken by UNISON’s National Executive Council in relation to NEC policy on motions before the forthcoming National Delegate Conference I am even more perplexed at our publicising such an unqualified welcome for a legislative programme which meets so few of our aspirations and ignores so many of our priorities.

I wonder if my NEC colleagues on the Policy Committee would approve of this unstinting praise for the Government, or whether they would agree with today’s Morning Star that “the role of trade unions at present must be to make the government listen to the labour movement rather than to act as cheerleaders for an administration that cannot conceal its contempt for them and their members”?

Being taken seriously by the employers?

I am indebted (as Cyril used to say on “That’s Life” last time an unpopular Labour Government was paving the way for years of reaction) to a management-side colleague who told me that he had read about the outcome of the UNISON pay consultation as a result of someone on the employers’ side reading this blog.

I have myself said that when it comes to the readership of this little blog I am going for quality rather than quantity – but this news raises the question of what sort of quality rather forcefully. There are two things I want to say about this.

First, what to say to a guest from the management side of the table?

Welcome management-side colleague (and I hope you are a trade union member!)

Now pay attention.

There doesn’t have to be a strike ballot. Or a strike.

All you have to do is meet the legitimate demand of the trade union side.

Not make a response which amounts to a reduction in living standards for your workers.

You know what we are asking for. It is hardly a King’s Ransom. In fact our claim looks excessively modest compared with the increasingly generous rewards at the top of the local government pay tree – and positively pitiable compared with the rewards being offered to those who produce nothing and provide no services in the City.

Of course local government is squeezed financially. Since ratecapping in the 1980s (and long before) successive Governments have enjoyed squeezing local government finance as the opprobrium of cutbacks is felt by local rather than national politicians (or so they hope).

But the local government employers have to get their priorities right. Most of the expenditure of a local authority goes on employing people to deliver services (whether it is done, as it should be, in-house or by ill-thought out “partnerships” or any one of the range of spivs and charlatans trying to make a quick buck out of taxpayers money – in the end the money pays people).

If you want good public services (and local government employers should) then it is long past time that you gave some serious thought to improving the pay and conditions of the local government workforce. Meeting the full claim of the local government side is the least that should be done.

So that’s the message to the employers.

What to say to trade union colleagues who worry that about our having honest debates in public, where the employers can listen in like this?

That’s easy.

Get real.

If we are serious about organising over a million local government workers to get a fair deal on pay then we need to be open and honest about our strategy, our tactics and our problems with those million workers.

Of course that means that the employers will get to hear what we have to say.

That’s just something we have to get used to.

Obviously I wouldn’t blog details of a plan to send low paid local government workers to protest at the individual surgeries of the leaders of key Tory led local authorities or anything like that. Or of our training strategy for the event.

(oh no, did I just say that…?)

Local Government pay - now what?

As reported below today's meeting of the National Joint Council Committee in UNISON agreed narrowly (but in my view unavoidably and rightly) to proceed with a strike ballot in the light of the narrow vote to reject in the consultation exercise on the employers' pay offer.

Clearly if one could choose the circumstances in which to launch a campaign for national strike action these are not quite the circumstances of choice. However, if the Industrial Action Committee of the UNISON NEC refuses to go ahead with the strike ballot they will be the people who decide that local government workers in England and Wales should suffer a real terms pay cut. I hope that my NEC colleagues on the Industrial Action Committee will not make such a mistake.

The arguments of those in the Northern and North West Regions who favoured acceptance were not, as I understand it, that our members are happy or satisfied with the pay offer. On the contrary we can all see that it is inadequate. The question remains whether or not there is the stomach for a fight on pay.

Obviously there are Regions and branches where a majority have favoured acceptance and I think there are a few important reasons for this to be considered. First, much having been made of the "2% limit" there has always been scope for presenting offers above 2% in a positive light. People may think "phew! that could have been worse" - members will also of course take account of the cost of taking strike action.

The critical factor in my experience in whether workers with a legitimate grievance will take strike action is whether or not they are persuaded that their leaders have a strategy to secure a more satisfactory outcome than that which will be achieved without action. It is therefore to this question that we should now turn our minds.

At present our members are unhappy with the inadquate pay offer but largely unconvinced that the Union has a plan which stands a good chance of securing a better offer. This is reflected in the narrow majorities in the consultation exercise and at the NJC Committee.

In these circumstances I think that the majority of the NJC Committee are to be congratulated in not accepting the employers' offer but have now set themselves, and the rest of us, the task of determining a strategy to win the dispute which can first of all persuade our members to embark upon strike action.

At this stage I have questions rather than answers.

How do we build support for action of more than one day? We know that the employers can ride out a single day, but not having seen longer term strike action on a serious national scale for some years we could have a dramatic effect. How do we maximise the effectiveness of such action? What is the role of national or Regional demonstrations?

Is there any role for selective strike action in local government alongside all-out action? This is remembered as having delivered "victory" in 1989 but in 2002 the Union largely failed to deliver effective selective action. There are no Grangemouths in the public services - or are there? Are there groups whose action could have a disproportionate effect?

How do we seek to coordinate with comrades in other Unions? This could be the critical factor in winning support among our own members for action. The possibility of joint action alongside teachers and civil servants exists, not to mention the possibility of joint action between health and local government (the coming of age for which UNISON has been waiting since 1993). Those who want to win the strike ballot (and that should be all those who care about the interests of our members and our Union) need to find credible and honest ways to present this case to our members.

Time is short and it is helpful (I think) that the Annual Meeting of UNISON United Left takes place this Saturday in London as we rank and file UNISON members need to discuss the campaign that needs to be waged for a "yes" vote in the strike ballot.

One final thought, for now.

I know that there will be those in the Union who do not look forward to the prospect of a strike ballot - but I think they need to look to the future. Our members in local government face Tory employers imposing pay cuts upon us. Given the likely outcome of the next General Election this will be the fate of what is left of the public sector in general.

The future for trade unions needs to be a future in which we mobilise our members to fight for our interests. Those of us who care about the future of trade unionism need to ensure that there is a strike ballot in local government and need to do all we can to win a majority for strike action.

A LEAP of faith?

One interesting side effect of the cataclysmic collapse of support for the Government and the Labour Party is that the always weak argument of those trade union leaders who think that we should be cautious in opposing the Government because we want to secure its re-election is now exposed as utterly daft.

We obviously have to get ready for a Tory Government and in the mean time we might as well try to get one or two more decent gains out of the Government while it can cling on to office. Council housing maybe? Trade union rights??

Longer term we need to address our minds afresh to the political representation of the working class and to the policies which the left and the trade unions should be proposing – to this end I think the Conference of the Left Economic Advisory Panel, coming up in London on 24 May, looks interesting, as an opportunity to have the sort of debates which are needed.

As well as policies we need to think more about forms of political organisation. The failure of New Labour to achieve significant change sets us up for a reactionary onslaught from the real Tories and our movement needs to find a better way to “do politics” than we have had for the past eleven years…

Demand the reinstatement of Karen Reissmann

I cannot be at today’s lobby of Parliament in support of sacked nurse and UNISON member Karen Reissmann. I am very sorry about this as I know that a number of colleagues and comrades from around the country will be travelling to London for the lobby. However, I have done what I can do right now – which you, dear reader, can do too right now.

Go to the invaluable “write to them” site and lobby your MP to support Karen. First check if your MP is one of the 23 who have already signed Early Day Motion 443 in Karen’s support by clicking here. Here’s the message I’ve just sent to my MP:

“I am writing to you because I am not able to attend the House of Commons today to support in person a lobby of Parliament in support of a sacked trade unionist, my fellow UNISON member, Karen Reissmann, victimised for speaking out against privatisation of health services. Karen’s case has the full support of UNISON. I would like to urge you to sign Early Day Motion 443.

Early Day Motion 443, submitted by John Leech MP, calls for the reinstatement of Karen Reissmann, the UNISON member sacked by Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust in November 2007. Karen was suspended by the Trust on the 15th June 2007 accused of seriously
adversely affecting the reputation of the Trust and undermining their confidence in her as an employee. Further allegations were added at a later stage and a disciplinary hearing took place early in November 2007 where Karen was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed.

The Early Day Motion states “That this House notes with concern the sacking of Karen Reissmann, Senior Practitioner Nurse, from the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust; is concerned that she was unjustifiably dismissed for speaking out against proposed changes to services which many staff believed would result in a worse service to patients; recognises the rights for all constituents to freedom of speech; to condemn Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust for disciplining Karen Reissmann for exercising her right; and calls upon Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust to reinstate Karen Reissmann with immediate effect.”

Privatisation of health services is rightly massively unpopular and the Government owes a debt of gratitude to trade unionists such as Karen Reissmann who are resisting this commercialisation of healthcare. Public servants – especially those who represent colleagues as lay trade union officials – must be free to speak out, particularly when in so doing they are speaking up for the best traditions of our labour and trade union movement and in defence of our greatest achievement, the National Health Service.”

Take a few minutes now - or when you can next take a break - and stick up for a dedicated trade unionist victimised for defending our Health Service!

Kick the BNP out of City Hall

On the way home from work this afternoon, heavily burdened (rather appropriately) with papers relating to a race discrimination case, I joined the protest at City Hall called by Love Music Hate Racism.

A good few hundred of us had gathered at very short notice (I had received an email alert from our Trades Council this morning) – speakers included UNISON Local Government Service Group Chair, Jean Geldart, who spoke of the experience of the Tower Hamlets branch in the early 1990s, and Andy Reid from the National Executive of PCS.

I had picked up some reservations that this protest was simply a “knee-jerk” reaction to the election of the BNP Assembly member. Perhaps it was – but if your knees don’t jerk that could mean you have no reflexes and are therefore dead…

The challenge now has to be to carry forward the campaign of opposition to the political far right. In general this is a campaign which seems to be holding back the electoral advance of these vile forces, but in parts of London they seem to be taking root.

The trade union movement needs to restore to our polity a political voice for working class people if we are to reclaim the political spaces into which the far right can insert themselves (for other reasons too this is an important project and one to which I will return in subsequent posts).

However we do also need actively to contest the legitimacy of the far right at every opportunity – and that means support for public protests that give no ground whatsoever to the argument that the political far right have any right to a platform for the politics of hate.

UNISON as a trade union in the workplace has a vital role to protect the interests of workers facing the hazard of having to work with the hatemongers. We also have an interest as a representative organisation of citizens, committed to equality and the interests of working people, in driving the BNP and their ilk back into the sewers.

It is important therefore that we arm our members with accurate information about, for example, the legal rights of public servants to join political protests (the political restrictions which apply to senior local government officers for example do not prevent people attending demonstrations – they have to be read alongside the Human Rights Act!)

It is also important that those in positions of authority in our movement use those positions to support and give well-founded confidence to trade unionists who want to act to implement our policies of opposition to the far right. It was great to see the UNISON Regional Banner outside City Hall last week – and I hope to see it there next time there is a protest against the unwelcome presence of organised racism in a building which ought to symbolise the diverse unity of London.

I remember the last time a member of the British National Party made an impression near where I work – and I refuse to tolerate the fact that a London Assembly member represents the city in which we fought back against their vicious hate.

Awaiting bad news?

The polls are closed now and I’m sure I’m not the only one waiting for the results of the local and London elections.

It’s hard to believe that Boris Johnson could be Mayor of London – a candidate with no substantial experience who if he wins - will have done so on the back of a series of smears against his more capable and experienced opponent. If elected “Bojo”’s essential nature will no doubt express itself in further reactionary outbursts to embarrass his supporters, but the damage will have been done. UNISON members in London know that we will all pay the price if a buffoon is elected to such an important role.

We’ll know the result soon enough, but whether or not the Tories can win the London Mayor, the fact that the race has gone to the wire is an ominous indication that, for the first time in years, a Tory Government is becoming possible.

This lends an urgency to the question of how to find a way to obtain political representation for trade union policies and for the interests of our members, because there will be those who will respond to the threat of a change of Government with a simplistic – and ultimately self-defeating – call to rally round and support “our” Labour Party in Government, right or wrong. They will be wrong and must be opposed.

But we also need to think ahead as trade unionists and begin to consider how we would deal with the challenges that a Tory Government would create for us. I understand why – in the face of real terms pay cuts and spreading privatisation – there will be plenty of trade unionists who don’t see how it could be worse.

It could.

We need to start thinking about how we would deal with a real right-wing Government as opposed to New Labour’s imitation. What would a Tory Government do? How would we resist? What lessons can we learn from our own history or from the recent experience of trade unionists in other countries where the political right have been in Government?

May Day Greetings

International Workers Day - and I am off to a Departmental Consultation meeting about (among other things) the threat of privatisation.

I hope you like the May Day card on the blog, borrowed from the New Unionism website.

How many years before the 1st May itself is a public holiday?

Debating the pay offer in the health service

An interesting and informative debate is going on at the healthactivists email discussion group as active trade unionists in health service unions consider the current three year pay offer.

I was disappointed to hear that there is some concern within UNISON about the informed intervention in the debate by UNITE NEC member Gill George.

The interests of our members are now in the widest possible debate so that members can make an informed decision in the consultative ballot, a timetable for which is awaited...

Update on 1 May - thanks to the ever informative healthactivists group I understand that
the ballot will run from 16 May to 6 June, with anyone in membership by 3 June entitled to vote.

Deadline for Conference priorities

Tomorrow – 30 April – is the deadline for UNISON branches in Greater London to return your forms to express preferences for the Region’s priorities for debate at National Delegate Conference. Forms can be faxed to the Region on 020 7535 2105.

I have explained the prioritisation process before (at interminable length) and have suggested some personal favourites – whatever your views make sure your branch doesn’t miss out on the opportunity to influence what will (and will not) be debated at Conference in June.

UNISON NEC report to UNISON branches

Here is a copy of a report circulated to UNISON branches in the Greater London Region over the weekend. I was overjoyed (no seriously I was) to receive a new copy of the UNISON Branch Directory (containing up to date contact information for UNISON branches) on Saturday and will check if there are any branches who may have missed out when I get a chance – in the mean time here is the report;

(apologies to regular readers for the extent to which this repeats earlier posts on this blog!)

Personal report of NEC member to Greater London Region UNISON Branches April 2008

First of all, please let me offer my apologies for the delay in circulating my report from the April meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC), which took place before the Easter holidays. In this message I am sending you a report from the April meeting of the NEC as well as the earlier meeting of the Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee.

Please feel free to circulate this report to your Branch Committee or to any UNISON members. If you would prefer not to receive personal NEC reports please let me know.

Report of Development and Organisation (D&O) Committee 8 April 08

The D&O Committee met primarily to discuss business for National Delegate Conference. We discussed the small number of Rule Amendments which have made it on to the agenda following the extreme diligence of our Standing Orders Committee. If anyone wants to know the policies adopted on any particular Rule Amendment please get in touch.

Of particular interest may be Rule Amendment 4, which the NEC is supporting, and which seeks to apply to Service Group Executives the principle that those who are elected to a Committee in one capacity ought not to be eligible to seek election to the same Committee in another capacity at the same time. This principle – if consistently applied – would help to maximise opportunities for participation in our Union for new activists.

There was some confusion about Rule Amendment 5 – from the National Disabled Members Committee – which, if passed by Conference, would create a position of Branch Disabled Members’ Officer ideally to be filled by a disabled member, as the officers seemed to think that the Amendment stated that the role would have to be filled by a disabled member or not be filled at all. This is not in fact what the Rule Amendment says and, after some debate at the Committee the eventual position is that the NEC is, happily in my view, supporting this Rule Amendment.

The NEC will also be supporting Rule Amendment 6 submitted by two branches in our own Region, which is the third consecutive attempt to persuade Conference to reduce the qualifying period of membership for access to legal assistance from thirteen weeks to four weeks. With union density below 50% in many of our lead employers there is a desperate need to recruit new members and reducing the qualifying period will help with this, strengthening the Union to the benefit of all our members. If any branches would like a speaker from the NEC to explain our policy of support for this very important Rule Amendment please contact any of your NEC members.

I am personally disappointed not only that the NEC will simply be opposing Rule Amendment 8, which seeks to regulate the discretion of the Chair of Conference in relation to the calling of card votes, but also that there appears to be no imaginative thought being given at present to how to avoid the problems which have arisen in recent years over contested calls for card votes.

The Committee also recommended policy to the NEC on those policy motions within its remit and suggested some amendments to motions on the Preliminary Agenda to go forward in the name of the NEC.

The other major item for discussion which arose at the Committee meeting related to a report which was not on the agenda for the Committee and, as it turned out, should not have been on any other agendas either. The Committee received a brief and not particularly informative report of the work currently underway following the decision of last year’s Conference in relation to the review of branch and service group structures.

This review is not being carried out by the NEC or by its relevant Committee but by a “Board” established by the D&O Committee last September. The lay members of the Board are Norma Stephenson, Jane Carolan, Tony Greive, Gerry Gallagher, Mike Hayes, Mike Kirby, Chris Tansley, Jean Geldart and Clare Williams, and the Board itself has established three project groups.

The first project group on branch structures includes the following lay members – Sue Highton, Gerry Gallagher and Clare Williams. It is working on a framework for joint branch/region assessments of the performance of branches, about which the D&O Committee received a further progress report, and also on a revised and simplified process for the creation, closure and merger of branches.

The second project group on branch finance and resources includes Mike Hayes (Chair of the NEC Finance and Resource Management (FRM) Committee) and is looking at a new format for annual financial returns, a revised audit process and guidelines to branches on honoraria payments and on the Regional pool.

The third group, identified as “potentially the most sensitive” is the project group on Service Group structures. The lay members involved in this group are Mike Kirby, Jean Geldart, Jane Carolan and Tony Grieve. The report received by the D&O Committee informed us that “fundamental questions remain around Service Group structures” but that the Board had agreed on 19 February that it was not enough to be asking questions at this stage and that “a variety of options are under consideration” and that “the Service Group Liaison Committee, Senior Management Group and Regional Convenors will be canvassed for their views.”

It appears that the report’s author was hiding the light of our Union under something of a bushel, since members of the Local Government Service Group Executive (SGE) meeting later that same week, had received a full report setting out three options for the future.

When it became clear that this report had been circulated SGE members were told to destroy it, so I can only speculate that the three options were;
A minimal change option;
A moderate change option reconfiguring Service Group structures by merging small Service groups and moving schools members out of Local Government into an “Education” Service Group and probation service members into a Service Group alongside Police Staff;
A maximum change option doing away with Service Group structures altogether and relying on “sectors” to do the bread and butter “terms and conditions” work of the Union.

With luck the unfortunate accident which led to the circulation of the full report to the Local Government SGE will mean that there is now an inclusive and transparent process of debate about the future structure of our Union which seeks to build a consensus through openness and respect for our activists. I will certainly expect to see an updated version of the full report at the next NEC meeting as will any other NEC members who are serious about the role and responsibility of our elected lay NEC.

National Executive Council Meeting 9 April 2008

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) on the Preliminary Agenda, and agreed on the submission of Amendments. 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.

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. This has now come true (which just shows that wishes can come true...)

NEC Annual Report – Branch Funding and Equal Pay

There was some discussion about the NEC Annual Report (not least a query over the working title “Taking the Lead”) however the most important area of discussion concerned what the report has to say (and what we are doing) in relation to meeting the costs of the equal pay challenge, and the implications this may have for branch funding.

As you will be aware from previous reports, the Union faces very significant costs from mass litigation over equal pay following the implementation of job evaluation based pay structures intended to deliver equal pay for work of equal value in our largest service groups.Most of this cost arises where, for example, employers will not offer any, or enough, compensation for past loss to those members who are gaining from the implementation of new pay structures and who can in some cases, depending upon the gender profile of the relevant parts of the workforce, bring equal pay claims to seek back pay for up to six years.

Some of the cost also arises from cases being brought against UNISON (as against other trade unions) by “no win no fee” solicitors (who are also touting for business bringing some equal pay cases against employers in return for a good share of the compensation due to often low paid workers for past injustice). UNISON is solvent, with reasonable levels of financial reserves and is not running up large deficits (which is good news – but probably also encourages litigation against the Union). However, a need for adequate funding for litigation relating to equal pay has been identified repeatedly in recent years.

The NEC controls the Union’s finances but has to do so within the Union’s Rules. One such is Rule H.4.1 which states that National Delegate Conference (consisting as it does of delegates from branches) is the body to decide how branches are funded from our subscription income. A formula was agreed in 2001 which gives all branches a basic 20% of the income from their members’ subscriptions plus various additions, with a guarantee that, overall, no less than 23.5% of national subscription income will go to branch funding (including contributions to the Regional Pool funds to which branches can apply for additional funding for specific projects).

There has been a strong feeling within the Union that “all parts of the Union” should contribute to “meeting the financial costs of the equal pay challenge.” Therefore the Finance and Resource Management Committee of the NEC, at its meeting on 31 January, agreed the text of a motion to be submitted to National Delegate Conference from the NEC explaining the need for these resources and seeking the approval of Conference to “top slice” all budgets, including branch funding to take about 2.5% of subscription income for this purpose (a proposal which is being described as a “freeze” because it is based upon leaving cash payments to branches in 2008 at the 2007 level).

Unfortunately – because of the ease with which the no win no fee solicitors can access details of discussion and decisions from within official trade union meetings and Conferences (with a view to using them in litigation against the trade union) the Standing Orders Committees for all UNISON Conferences have been given legal advice not to permit on the agenda any discussion of equal pay, for fear that this will place the union in legal jeopardy. I have commented here before that I think that this overly cautious approach will create more and more problems for us as the years go by.

Advance notice of the likelihood of such an approach led the Finance Committee members, at the February meeting of the NEC, to agree not to proceed with the motion which they had been intending to recommend. Instead it was agreed to explain the proposal in the NEC Annual Report, about which delegates to Conference can ask questions (providing that they submit an initial written question before a published deadline and a further written supplementary question before a further deadline) but which is not generally subject to debate.

Meetings have been arranged around the Regions for Branch Treasurers in particular to be briefed on the proposals in relation to what is generally now described as the freeze on branch funding and this has become somewhat controversial. There is a meeting in the Greater London Region on Thursday 22 May at 2pm in Central London and branches should register their attendance with Helen Reynolds at Regional Office by 6 May. I strongly urge all branches to attend.

As you may have seen, the Worcester County branch have issued a couple of email circulars objecting to the proposal on several grounds.

As an aside – one of the arguments put forward by Worcester branch does not convince me (as I have explained to them in correspondence). I don’t think that the cost of building a new Headquarters building for the Union is an issue to raise in this context. It is certainly a valid and legitimate issue about which branches may wish to hold the NEC to account at Conference, but in the context of the current branch funding proposals it is a bit of a red herring (I will happily explain the reasons why I voted to support the proposal when the decision was taken in 2004 to any London UNISON branch – I covered this in a report to branches at the time).

Much more to the point, in my opinion, is the fact that our Rule Book simply does not allow the NEC to alter the basis of branch funding without an explicit Conference decision.
I raised concerns on this point in the discussion of the Annual Report at the NEC meeting, having given notice that I would. I argued that there was no other Rule of the Union which would allow the NEC to disregard Rule H.4.1 (having heard it suggested that Rule D.2.9.15 might do so) – on this point I was told that this had not been suggested.I went on to say that trying to use the Annual Report as a device for Conference to take a decision as would satisfy the requirements of Rule H.4.1 in relation to branch funding was not satisfactory since the Annual Report is not submitted in accordance with Rule P.17.2 (which covers NEC reports requiring decisions) but with Rule P.17.1 (which doesn’t).

Both the President and the General Secretary, in their different ways, said that this was “not a fait accompli” until Conference (those were the words of our President – Dave just said that if Conference refers back that section of the NEC Annual Report then “we won’t do it” – i.e. the changes in relation to branch funding will not be made).

Although this acceptance of Conference sovereignty is welcome it isn’t, in my opinion, good enough. The problem is not what would happen if Conference moved reference back of the report, since I believe what was said about that.

The problem would arise if Conference did not refer back the report, since it would still be highly arguable that no proper Conference decision had been taken to vary the 2001 formula on branch funding or its implementation and application.

It was suggested to me privately that the office has legal advice to the effect that the requirements of Rule H.4.1 are satisfied if an attempt to refer back a section of the Annual Report is unsuccessful, but I don’t think that this is an adequate approach to the governance of the Union. I am not the only one who is not persuaded.

I have spoken with the Glasgow City branch, who submitted a motion to Conference (which has been ruled out of order) – the Glasgow motion, endorsed by the UNISON Scottish Council, asks Conference to agree the proposals which the NEC Finance Committee want to implement.

Since there is a need to resource litigation on equal pay, and since it is reasonable to ask branches for a proportionate contribution to this, I think that the best outcome now would be if the Standing Orders Committee can change their mind about the Glasgow motion. Branch delegates could then decide whether or not they were persuaded of the NEC’s approach in accordance with our Rules.

If the Glasgow motion is not admitted to the agenda then the only option, not just for those who may disagree with the detail of the NEC approach, but also for those unwilling to set this precedent and allow the branch funding formula to be varied in this way, will be to move reference back of the relevant part of the Annual Report.

We may well know a little more about the decisions likely to be before Conference by 22 May, which provides another reason for branches to ensure that we are represented at the Greater London Region briefing.

Pay offers and pay disputes

As noted in the official report of the NEC meeting, the NEC also received reports on the state of play in relation to pay offers in our Service Groups. Branches will be familiar with the position in respect of your own service group.

In local government we are consulting members with a recommendation to reject an offer worth about 2.5% on the pay bill and offering most members 2.45%. In health we are consulting members without a recommendation on a three year offer which starts with 2.75%.

UNISON’s April bargaining report includes valuable information to share with members being consulted on pay offers;

“Average earnings growth is now forecast to be in the region of 3.8% in the first quarter of the year, but staying within sight of the 4% mark through the remainder of the year.”

“Inflation is forecast to run at 3.8% during the first quarter of 2008. It will fall throughout the remainder of the year, from 3.4% in the second quarter to 2.6% by the fourth quarter. The average for 2008 as a whole is forecast to run at 3.3%.”

Pay offers to our members at less than the rate of price inflation amount to a pay cut in real terms and – following the success of the strike action on 24 April by members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and University and College Union (UCU) – there is every prospect of unified public sector strike action over pay which can force the Government to back down on public sector pay restraint.

As Dave Prentis reminded the April NEC meeting, UNISON is supporting a TUC lobby of Parliament over public sector pay on 9 June. We could (and in my view should) be aiming to use that lobby as a stepping stone towards united public sector strike action.

A bit of politics...

There are those in our movement who think that the electoral chances of the Labour Party are more important than fighting for our members interests.

I don’t agree. I think the first job of trade unionists is to build the trade union movement as a tool we can use, as trade union members, to defend our collective interests. Political campaigning is subordinate to that.

However, for the next couple of days it is worth spending a bit of time persuading trade union members in London to use their votes on Thursday.

On the day that it is reported that Rome has elected a Mayor from the political far right, and with the threat of representation for the politics of hate in the London Assembly, we need to work to maximise the turnout on Thursday. Electoral support for the far right legitimises racism and homophobia and goes hand in hand with violent hate crime.

Although neither of the two candidates who can win the election for Mayor of London supports all of UNISON’s progressive policies – the present incumbent privatised the East London Line (in spite of trade union opposition) for example – there is nevertheless a very clear choice. We may be a long way from seeing every worker in the city earning the Mayor’s living wage – but at least we have a living wage target set by the Mayor to aim for.

With four lists, and two Mayoral candidates, to the left of Labour there’s lots more that could be said but not right now.

It’s time to get the vote out, stop the far right, and re-elect the least worst Mayor of London currently available.

The state of our unions on Workers Memorial Day

Workers Memorial Day is a day to remember those killed just for going to work – but I think it is also a day to reflect on the state of the movement which – through our campaigns – created every single legal protection for the health, safety and welfare of working people.

It’s a good day to be part of a growing global trade union movement which, even in this country, can mobilise mass strike action against Government inspired pay restraint and which still includes strategically placed workers who can wield significant industrial muscle.

Although both the splendid and entirely justified action at Grangemouth and the public sector pay disputes are defensive battles, the fact that they are being waged gives the lie to those in our ranks who think that our members will not fight.

There is only now a little over a week for UNISON members in local government to let our branches know how we feel about the offer of a real terms pay cut. A timetable for the consultation with members in health is now needed…

Yesterday and tomorrow

I haven’t had the chance to blog properly about this yet, having spent large chunks of today stuffing envelopes…

However, I have to say that yesterday’s strike action by members of the NUT, PCS and UCU unions was exhilarating.

Accompanied by my children, whose schools were closed for the day, I started out on a local demonstration of 400 strikers and supporters who marched from the Brixton site of Lambeth College, via the Town Hall, where the NUT were waiting, through the centre of Brixton.

From there we went to Lincoln’s Inn Fields to join the estimated 10,000 demonstrators who marched to Westminster, where less than a third of that number filled Central Hall to capacity.

I wish that everyone who doubts the confidence of our members to take strike action for fair pay could have heard thousands of teachers, lecturers and other public servants cheering the young teachers and lecturers – and the General Secretaries – who pledged to fight on for fair pay.

The case for a Central London rally and demonstration as part (only party) of a plan to focus media attention on strike action was also made quite unarguably – the evidence is here, here, here, here, here …

A compelling case can be made against the Government’s public sector pay policy and against accepting below-inflation pay rises. Our members can be persuaded that this attack upon our living standards should be fought.

The debate must now turn to the strategy necessary to win this fight with the Government, starting with the campaign to reject unacceptable pay offers in health and local government.

How would it be if our next step was a two day strike involving, on either or both days, local government workers (north and south of the border), health workers, teachers, lecturers, civil servants? What if the decisions about the dispute were taken by the elected representatives of the strikers, cooperating across and between unions? Suppose we could make it clear to politicians that our continuing support for them was contingent upon their support for us?

These may be good questions. Now we need answers.

Good luck to tomorrow's strikers

Good luck to teachers striking tomorrow, also to civil servants and college lecturers. Oh, and thousands of UNISON members in Birmingham too…

As we consult members about national pay offers in health and local government (both well below the Retail Price Index in the current year) UNISON activists could do worse than bear in mind the following information from the PCS website;

Food prices have increased by 7.4%
Petrol by 20.5%
Water by 5.5%
Gas by 12.9%
Electricity by 7.9%

There will be those who say they cannot afford to take strike action. It’s an old cliché, but – can we afford not to?