My best intentions to blog regularly at the TUC have been frustrated. I can report exclusively that Congress sang Auld Lang Syne...
In part this blogging failure is because I spent some time supporting the Fremantle workers - and working fruitlessly on the Emergency Motion which was not in the end admitted to the agenda (although the strong support for the dispute by the UNISON delegation at the TUC and from many other General Secretaries and delegates was very positive).
I was very pleased to be able to support an Emergency Motion from the Prison Officers Association today moved by POA President Colin Moses, and expressing support for the POA who face legal threats from the Government - the Union could see fines of half a million quid because their members rightly walked out on strike, and the entire Executive could face dismissal.
All the anodyne rubbish that I heard about a "change of tone" from the new Prime Minister this week is thoroughly exposed by this vicious attack by the Government on a public service trade union. UNISON branches need to be moving resolutions in support of our fellow public servants!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Blogging interrupted
No time to blog really today I am afraid – I was pleased to spend much of my time with colleagues from the Barnet branch of UNISON who were promoting the Fremantle dispute and getting support from a wide range of fellow trade unionists.
UNISON has now agreed the wording for an Emergency Motion on the dispute which is being submitted to the General Purposes Committee and should be taken this week.
Following last night’s excellent PCS Fringe meeting the crucial debate on public sector pay saw a General Council statement committing us to coordinate industrial action.
UNISON's contribution to the public sector pay campaign will be decided over the next few days - the Local Government Service Group Executive is meeting on Thursday afternoon and the Health Service Group Executive on Friday (following the result of the consultative ballot which will be known by then). The Industrial Action Committee of the NEC is meeting on Wednesday of next week I believe.
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as possible…
UNISON has now agreed the wording for an Emergency Motion on the dispute which is being submitted to the General Purposes Committee and should be taken this week.
Following last night’s excellent PCS Fringe meeting the crucial debate on public sector pay saw a General Council statement committing us to coordinate industrial action.
UNISON's contribution to the public sector pay campaign will be decided over the next few days - the Local Government Service Group Executive is meeting on Thursday afternoon and the Health Service Group Executive on Friday (following the result of the consultative ballot which will be known by then). The Industrial Action Committee of the NEC is meeting on Wednesday of next week I believe.
Normal blogging will be resumed as soon as possible…
Monday, September 10, 2007
Perils of live blogging at the TUC
Between the laptop battery and the number of other things which there are to do I can’t keep up a running commentary – but other UNISON comrades are also blogging here and here.
I will however make mention of the debate on slavery, squeezed in at the end of the morning session this morning, and to Colin Moses of the POA in particular who pointed out that the legacy of slavery is with us to this day.
I will however make mention of the debate on slavery, squeezed in at the end of the morning session this morning, and to Colin Moses of the POA in particular who pointed out that the legacy of slavery is with us to this day.
Gordon Brown at the TUC
Here is the report I wrote as I listened to Gordon Brown this morning but couldn’t blog at the time as my battery died… I am not the first UNISON NEC member to blog about the speech!
Gordon Brown has started his address to the TUC by thanking retiring members of the General Council. As someone else whose already blogged this put it this is a transparent attempt to appear to be part of our"family”, our movement.
Brown talks about Burma and Darfur as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
He has now just used the phrase “a British job for every British worker”. This is meant to be the bit of the speech in which he is telling us good things about job creation, but it has some pretty scary echoes.
Then we are told about “stability” this is why public sector workers have to put up with real terms pay cuts.
Overall this sums up the difference between Brown and Blair.
The same basic medicine, but delivered to us with warm – not to say soporific – words rather than overt hostility.
In response most delegates applauded, though many of us did not. A few small unions moved to give a standing ovation but only a handful stood – PCS had the distinction of making a protest, but (in line with our delegation meeting discussion yesterday) UNISON did not.
Update – I have just read this comment from our General Secretary on the Guardian website;
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Brown had delivered a "conciliatory" speech.
"He delivered lots of good news in an attempt to sweeten the bitter pill that was the message about pay discipline," said Mr Prentis.
"Perhaps he hasn't yet gauged the real feeling of public service workers having to bear the brunt of government cost-cutting."
The General Council statement on pay is probably a bit too vague and wordy to help the Prime Minister with gauging our feelings – I hope that we hear from as many unions as possible at this evening’s fringe meeting so that we do get the message across…
Gordon Brown has started his address to the TUC by thanking retiring members of the General Council. As someone else whose already blogged this put it this is a transparent attempt to appear to be part of our"family”, our movement.
Brown talks about Burma and Darfur as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
He has now just used the phrase “a British job for every British worker”. This is meant to be the bit of the speech in which he is telling us good things about job creation, but it has some pretty scary echoes.
Then we are told about “stability” this is why public sector workers have to put up with real terms pay cuts.
Overall this sums up the difference between Brown and Blair.
The same basic medicine, but delivered to us with warm – not to say soporific – words rather than overt hostility.
In response most delegates applauded, though many of us did not. A few small unions moved to give a standing ovation but only a handful stood – PCS had the distinction of making a protest, but (in line with our delegation meeting discussion yesterday) UNISON did not.
Update – I have just read this comment from our General Secretary on the Guardian website;
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Brown had delivered a "conciliatory" speech.
"He delivered lots of good news in an attempt to sweeten the bitter pill that was the message about pay discipline," said Mr Prentis.
"Perhaps he hasn't yet gauged the real feeling of public service workers having to bear the brunt of government cost-cutting."
The General Council statement on pay is probably a bit too vague and wordy to help the Prime Minister with gauging our feelings – I hope that we hear from as many unions as possible at this evening’s fringe meeting so that we do get the message across…
Gordon Brown praises union activists - but does he mean it?
It’s very touching that the first task that the Prime Minister has at the TUC is to give out the awards to union activists. Irene Stacey from Newham UNSION is being honoured for recruiting over 200 members in a year.
Irene’s exemplary work depends also – as she would be the first to acknowledge – on the excellent work of Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan. Michael is suspended at the moment and faces dismissal on trumped up charges.
Now that Gordon has rightly presented Irene with her award, perhaps he could have a word with Newham’s rogue Labour mayor, Robin Wales about ending the attack upon Newham UNISON?
Of is the approach of giving us awards whilst permitting our victimisation a rather fine example of the Government’s attitude to lay trade union activists?
Irene’s exemplary work depends also – as she would be the first to acknowledge – on the excellent work of Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan. Michael is suspended at the moment and faces dismissal on trumped up charges.
Now that Gordon has rightly presented Irene with her award, perhaps he could have a word with Newham’s rogue Labour mayor, Robin Wales about ending the attack upon Newham UNISON?
Of is the approach of giving us awards whilst permitting our victimisation a rather fine example of the Government’s attitude to lay trade union activists?
Brendan Barber opens TUC
Congress opens with the annual address of the TUC General Secretary.
Brendan Barber reports “another year of solid progress for our movement”.
He rightly talks up the unions role in fighting the Far Right, and Congress has applauded ASLEF for winning a crucial legal victory allowing trade unions to exclude fascists.
The applause welcoming the creation of UNITE is perhaps a little more muted, but the applause for the CWU, the POA and the Unions fighting job losses in Remploy is more enthusiastic.
This isn’t just an emotional appeal – unions in dispute are unions doing something for their members.
However it doesn’t take long for us to get on to empty self-congratulation. Apparently in the past year we have put private equity on the map, we have changed Government policy on health service reform and we have made social housing into a political issue. (One out of these three claims is well founded I would have thought?)
There are real political gains (the increase in statutory annual leave, the prohibition on discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the provision of goods and services). However our leaders do have a tendency to talk up our successes in a way which tends to float away from reality…
Moving on, Brendan welcomes Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, warns us about the Tories and is pleased with increasing public spending. However he is expressing firm opposition to the 2% pay policy for the public sector (to good applause). The TUC General Secretary has just said that this centralised attempt to hold down public sector pay “must never be repeated” – he wants the Prime Minister to listen to us about this. Later this morning we will hear if he will do…
Brendan moves on to point out that we can have social justice with economic growth, citing the postwar settlement in Western Europe as an example. This leads, by way of praise for Government policies to tackle poverty to a call for a “new national consensus” in favour of equality, and a Commission to look at the distribution of wealth and income. (How cynical would it be to see the TUC still casting around for a role as brokers of consensus rather than organisers of a combative union movement?)
On the one hand, our TUC General Secretary believes we have a historic opportunity to found a new progressive consensus, on the other hand he is telling us about the examples of super-exploitation of migrant workers which he has encountered over the last while. A fine example of the difference between the experience of dialogue and “listening” to the trade union leadership at the top, and the experience of exploitation of ordinary workers through an economic system thoroughly endorsed and supported by the Government.
It is impossible to disagree with Brendan’s final call for us to “make this country better” but I don’t feel any better informed about how to resolve the contradictions between how our members (and potential members) are being treated by Government and employers on the one hand and the faith which we are being asked to put in working with our adversaries on the other.
Brendan Barber reports “another year of solid progress for our movement”.
He rightly talks up the unions role in fighting the Far Right, and Congress has applauded ASLEF for winning a crucial legal victory allowing trade unions to exclude fascists.
The applause welcoming the creation of UNITE is perhaps a little more muted, but the applause for the CWU, the POA and the Unions fighting job losses in Remploy is more enthusiastic.
This isn’t just an emotional appeal – unions in dispute are unions doing something for their members.
However it doesn’t take long for us to get on to empty self-congratulation. Apparently in the past year we have put private equity on the map, we have changed Government policy on health service reform and we have made social housing into a political issue. (One out of these three claims is well founded I would have thought?)
There are real political gains (the increase in statutory annual leave, the prohibition on discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the provision of goods and services). However our leaders do have a tendency to talk up our successes in a way which tends to float away from reality…
Moving on, Brendan welcomes Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, warns us about the Tories and is pleased with increasing public spending. However he is expressing firm opposition to the 2% pay policy for the public sector (to good applause). The TUC General Secretary has just said that this centralised attempt to hold down public sector pay “must never be repeated” – he wants the Prime Minister to listen to us about this. Later this morning we will hear if he will do…
Brendan moves on to point out that we can have social justice with economic growth, citing the postwar settlement in Western Europe as an example. This leads, by way of praise for Government policies to tackle poverty to a call for a “new national consensus” in favour of equality, and a Commission to look at the distribution of wealth and income. (How cynical would it be to see the TUC still casting around for a role as brokers of consensus rather than organisers of a combative union movement?)
On the one hand, our TUC General Secretary believes we have a historic opportunity to found a new progressive consensus, on the other hand he is telling us about the examples of super-exploitation of migrant workers which he has encountered over the last while. A fine example of the difference between the experience of dialogue and “listening” to the trade union leadership at the top, and the experience of exploitation of ordinary workers through an economic system thoroughly endorsed and supported by the Government.
It is impossible to disagree with Brendan’s final call for us to “make this country better” but I don’t feel any better informed about how to resolve the contradictions between how our members (and potential members) are being treated by Government and employers on the one hand and the faith which we are being asked to put in working with our adversaries on the other.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Support Fremantle workers online
Check out the news from Barnet UNISON!
The online campaign to support Fremantle workers has moved here.
It is very important to back the workers in this dispute against attacks on pay and conditions – particularly because the employer has tried to stop online campaigning by Labourstart. Fremantle didn't enjoy receiving over 8,000 emails.
I received a reply from the Chief Executive seeking to rebut UNISON's criticisms of her organisation. I replied pointing out why she was wrong and inviting her to reconsider. I'll give her a couple of days to reply and then publish the correspondence here.
Following the disgraceful sacking of UNISON Activist Andrew Rogers I hope that we can give a high profile to this important dispute at the TUC this week.
The online campaign to support Fremantle workers has moved here.
It is very important to back the workers in this dispute against attacks on pay and conditions – particularly because the employer has tried to stop online campaigning by Labourstart. Fremantle didn't enjoy receiving over 8,000 emails.
I received a reply from the Chief Executive seeking to rebut UNISON's criticisms of her organisation. I replied pointing out why she was wrong and inviting her to reconsider. I'll give her a couple of days to reply and then publish the correspondence here.
Following the disgraceful sacking of UNISON Activist Andrew Rogers I hope that we can give a high profile to this important dispute at the TUC this week.
Listening for a change of tone...?
I read that we are due to give Gordon Brown a hard time at the TUC…
Well, I hope so.
According to the BBC “most union leaders are quietly hopeful there will be a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10.”
I am not sure that is much to hope for in the face of a public sector pay freeze. The treatment of the prison officers is particularly poor – but the pay offers which we have rejected in local government and on which we are consulting members in health are both below the rate of inflation – meaning that they are a pay cut in real terms.
Brown says this is necessary to control inflation, but has nothing to say about inflation busting increases for the fat cats.
At the same time as holding down our pay Brown is set upon changing Labour Party Conference to limit union influence.
We would have to be incredibly stupid to sit silently by (or worse still, to sit by and applaud) as this is done.
But perhaps we will. Perhaps we will watch as our pay is held down below inflation and our ability to make Labour Party policy is eliminated and shall console ourselves with the hope that there may be “a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10”…
I think that at the TUC we should be very quiet when the great man speaks so we can listen carefully for this change of tone…
Well, I hope so.
According to the BBC “most union leaders are quietly hopeful there will be a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10.”
I am not sure that is much to hope for in the face of a public sector pay freeze. The treatment of the prison officers is particularly poor – but the pay offers which we have rejected in local government and on which we are consulting members in health are both below the rate of inflation – meaning that they are a pay cut in real terms.
Brown says this is necessary to control inflation, but has nothing to say about inflation busting increases for the fat cats.
At the same time as holding down our pay Brown is set upon changing Labour Party Conference to limit union influence.
We would have to be incredibly stupid to sit silently by (or worse still, to sit by and applaud) as this is done.
But perhaps we will. Perhaps we will watch as our pay is held down below inflation and our ability to make Labour Party policy is eliminated and shall console ourselves with the hope that there may be “a marked change of tone in the noises emanating from No 10”…
I think that at the TUC we should be very quiet when the great man speaks so we can listen carefully for this change of tone…
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Unhappy about a strike ballot?
Oh dear!
The local government employers are upset.
Poor dears.
Perhaps if they don’t want us to strike they should think about offering us pay rises which at least keep pace with inflation?
The local government employers are upset.
Poor dears.
Perhaps if they don’t want us to strike they should think about offering us pay rises which at least keep pace with inflation?
Say No to Victimisation
I understand that the season for hunting Grouse (pronounced “Grice” by those who shoot the poor creatures) begins on 12 August.
Unfortunately it seems that it is always open season for reactionary employers to try to victimise trade union representatives.
I was shocked to hear yesterday that cost-cutting and pay-cutting wreckers of North London care homes, Fremantle, have sacked UNISON activist Andrew Rogers (no relation)(except that he is my brother trade unionist!)
Follow that link and you’ll find some immediate action you can take to express solidarity.
Of course it is not just our privatised members who face the risk of victimisation if they stand up for union members – Michael Gavan is under attack by Newham Council, and Karen Reissman by her health trust in Manchester.
If you have a branch or branch Committee meeting coming up, remember to send messages of support to these victimised activists – and donations if you can afford them!
Unfortunately it seems that it is always open season for reactionary employers to try to victimise trade union representatives.
I was shocked to hear yesterday that cost-cutting and pay-cutting wreckers of North London care homes, Fremantle, have sacked UNISON activist Andrew Rogers (no relation)(except that he is my brother trade unionist!)
Follow that link and you’ll find some immediate action you can take to express solidarity.
Of course it is not just our privatised members who face the risk of victimisation if they stand up for union members – Michael Gavan is under attack by Newham Council, and Karen Reissman by her health trust in Manchester.
If you have a branch or branch Committee meeting coming up, remember to send messages of support to these victimised activists – and donations if you can afford them!
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Local Government strike action on the way
Well now it’s official – UNISON has rejected the local government pay offer.
Mind you the official version is not yet a stirring call to arms…
“The NJC committee – UNISON members of the sector’s negotiating body, the national joint council – decided to ask the union’s local government service group executive and industrial action committee to authorise an industrial action ballot.”
Let’s be clear – the Service Group Executive is bound by the policy of the Local Government Conference to reject an offer worth 2.5% - and the Industrial Action Committee, as a SubCommittee of the NEC, must follow the relevant policy of National Delegate Conference.
The decision has been taken and there is no room for doubt or equivocation. Now is the time to mobilise our members for the strike action which cannot now be avoided.
The decision of the National Joint Council Committee was overwhelming and must and will be supported by our Union. Members of the Service Group Executive are being consulted right now on their support for the decision – UNISON activists can always contact their SGE members to check that they are following our agreed policy!
Mind you the official version is not yet a stirring call to arms…
“The NJC committee – UNISON members of the sector’s negotiating body, the national joint council – decided to ask the union’s local government service group executive and industrial action committee to authorise an industrial action ballot.”
Let’s be clear – the Service Group Executive is bound by the policy of the Local Government Conference to reject an offer worth 2.5% - and the Industrial Action Committee, as a SubCommittee of the NEC, must follow the relevant policy of National Delegate Conference.
The decision has been taken and there is no room for doubt or equivocation. Now is the time to mobilise our members for the strike action which cannot now be avoided.
The decision of the National Joint Council Committee was overwhelming and must and will be supported by our Union. Members of the Service Group Executive are being consulted right now on their support for the decision – UNISON activists can always contact their SGE members to check that they are following our agreed policy!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Strike action in local government over pay!
I hear that UNISON's National Joint Council Committee has agreed to proceed with a strike ballot rather than recommend acceptance of the employers' (slightly) improved offer of 2.475% (with 3.4% for those on the lowest point of the pay spine).
If this decision gets the support of the Industrial Action Committee - which it should as it is in line with the policies of Local Government and National Delegate Conference - we could see national strike action in the autumn.
The GMB are holding a delegate meeting on Thursday to consult on the pay offer and have suspended preparations for industrial action in the mean time.
I'll post more information when it is to hand.
Update - the Industrial Action Committee will be meeting soon (I hope it will be next week in Brighton) and a strike ballot in the autumn could see strike action in mid November.
UNISON branches and activists need to prepare our members for the likelihood of strike action.
Membership lists need to be as up to date as possible - particularly the addresses!
We need to recruit all the non-members we can so they don't cross our picket lines (agency workers can join the union too - and any one who is a human being can respect a picket line!)
We need to put a bit of money aside from our inadequate salaries in September and October so we can stand the deductions for strike action when they begin to hit us later in the year.
This will not be an easy fight but it is a very important one.
The NJC decision took a wise decision (by a wide margin) and now we need to knuckle down and get on with the hard work of winning the ballot and then winning the strike.
If this decision gets the support of the Industrial Action Committee - which it should as it is in line with the policies of Local Government and National Delegate Conference - we could see national strike action in the autumn.
The GMB are holding a delegate meeting on Thursday to consult on the pay offer and have suspended preparations for industrial action in the mean time.
I'll post more information when it is to hand.
Update - the Industrial Action Committee will be meeting soon (I hope it will be next week in Brighton) and a strike ballot in the autumn could see strike action in mid November.
UNISON branches and activists need to prepare our members for the likelihood of strike action.
Membership lists need to be as up to date as possible - particularly the addresses!
We need to recruit all the non-members we can so they don't cross our picket lines (agency workers can join the union too - and any one who is a human being can respect a picket line!)
We need to put a bit of money aside from our inadequate salaries in September and October so we can stand the deductions for strike action when they begin to hit us later in the year.
This will not be an easy fight but it is a very important one.
The NJC decision took a wise decision (by a wide margin) and now we need to knuckle down and get on with the hard work of winning the ballot and then winning the strike.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Use the internet to support unions
I am a union activist. So I support workers taking action (for example, here and here). As a blogger I think that we need to use these new (well, not so new) communication technologies to organise in support of our struggles.
We need to find ways to use the internet to highlight working class struggle.
I think that message needs to go out to comrades in the RMT and POA whose websites are not keeping up to date with their recent struggles…
Because I know that it is those Unions who will inspire the best activists at next week's
TUC Congress.
We need to find ways to use the internet to highlight working class struggle.
I think that message needs to go out to comrades in the RMT and POA whose websites are not keeping up to date with their recent struggles…
Because I know that it is those Unions who will inspire the best activists at next week's
TUC Congress.
Brown reaches out to Tories but not trade unions
So two renegade right wing Tories are now advising our “Labour” Government…
I can’t add to the criticisms which have already been expressed.
Or maybe I can.
Someone recently remarked that it was noticeable that Gordon Brown’s big tent politics didn’t seem to include room for any trade unionists.
Will the trade union leadership ever wake up to the need to support an effective opposition to our right-wing Prime Minister??
I’ll spend next week finding out and let you know…
I can’t add to the criticisms which have already been expressed.
Or maybe I can.
Someone recently remarked that it was noticeable that Gordon Brown’s big tent politics didn’t seem to include room for any trade unionists.
Will the trade union leadership ever wake up to the need to support an effective opposition to our right-wing Prime Minister??
I’ll spend next week finding out and let you know…
UNISON Conference barely nine months away...
There’s a lot to think about for UNISON members (as always!)
Is our current Representation Guide really serving UNISON organisation? At present full-time officials and lay activists are banned from representing members at employment tribunals, and the decisions which we take about whether to represent members are taken by lawyers on the legal merits of the case, not on the basis of the interests of our Union and its members.
What about our Industrial Action Procedures? Do these help branches and activists who want to take industrial action – or do they provide a subaltern gate-keeping role for our officials as junior partners in the restrictions placed upon the trade unions by the anti-union laws?
Then there are the Democracy in UNISON guidelines – which do not have the force of either Rule or Regulation in our Union, but which have recently been used to attempt to restrict branches expressing dissent from views which have (formal or informal!) official sanction in member ballots. Is this attempt to stifle debate an appropriate (or an Orwellian) way to use a set of guidelines with the word “democracy” in the title?
And that’s not even thinking about our Rule Book. Are the disciplinary rules (in Rule I) really serving the interests of our members – or do they give too much scope for unjustified action? Should we be looking again at those Rules – or at the Rule which precludes Conference even debating the election of officials?
I wonder also if all activists are happy with the current operation of our complaints procedure?
The NEC (and the people who do our thinking for us) are thinking already about motions for next summer’s Conference. I hope that those of you who are UNISON activists in your branches are doing so also…
Is our current Representation Guide really serving UNISON organisation? At present full-time officials and lay activists are banned from representing members at employment tribunals, and the decisions which we take about whether to represent members are taken by lawyers on the legal merits of the case, not on the basis of the interests of our Union and its members.
What about our Industrial Action Procedures? Do these help branches and activists who want to take industrial action – or do they provide a subaltern gate-keeping role for our officials as junior partners in the restrictions placed upon the trade unions by the anti-union laws?
Then there are the Democracy in UNISON guidelines – which do not have the force of either Rule or Regulation in our Union, but which have recently been used to attempt to restrict branches expressing dissent from views which have (formal or informal!) official sanction in member ballots. Is this attempt to stifle debate an appropriate (or an Orwellian) way to use a set of guidelines with the word “democracy” in the title?
And that’s not even thinking about our Rule Book. Are the disciplinary rules (in Rule I) really serving the interests of our members – or do they give too much scope for unjustified action? Should we be looking again at those Rules – or at the Rule which precludes Conference even debating the election of officials?
I wonder also if all activists are happy with the current operation of our complaints procedure?
The NEC (and the people who do our thinking for us) are thinking already about motions for next summer’s Conference. I hope that those of you who are UNISON activists in your branches are doing so also…
Solidarity with the tube workers
Good luck and solidarity to Underground workers in the RMT striking today – and until Thursday. Workers do not take strike action lightly and if the tube workers feel they need to protect themselves then they deserve the full support of all trade unionists (and all those who call themselves socialists…)(who shouldn’t be having a go at the Union!)
A 72 hour strike seems to be a good way to start a serious dispute. Who do I know who ought to be about to embark upon a serious dispute?
A 72 hour strike seems to be a good way to start a serious dispute. Who do I know who ought to be about to embark upon a serious dispute?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Better blogging...
I am slowly getting the hang of this now that I have been doing it for more than a year :)
I put a poll on the blog asking if people thought 2% was a good enough pay rise for public sector workers and I am glad to say that more than 80% of you thought it wasn't.
Today I have changed the poll to refer specifically to the pay offer in local government.
Having had sight of correspondence from a particularly diligent paid official of the Union earlier today I have to point out that this poll on the blog is a purely personal initiative and does not amount to any form of formal consultation.
No decision having been taken as to whether we will waste all our time by re-running the consultation exercise now that the employers' have finally made the offer we all knew that they were going to make in the first place, it would - apparently - be quite wrong for members to be consulted in advance of any such decision.
Anyway - vote in the poll!
I put a poll on the blog asking if people thought 2% was a good enough pay rise for public sector workers and I am glad to say that more than 80% of you thought it wasn't.
Today I have changed the poll to refer specifically to the pay offer in local government.
Having had sight of correspondence from a particularly diligent paid official of the Union earlier today I have to point out that this poll on the blog is a purely personal initiative and does not amount to any form of formal consultation.
No decision having been taken as to whether we will waste all our time by re-running the consultation exercise now that the employers' have finally made the offer we all knew that they were going to make in the first place, it would - apparently - be quite wrong for members to be consulted in advance of any such decision.
Anyway - vote in the poll!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bought off with 2.5%???
I see Gordon Brown is being accused by the Tories of trying to “buy off” public sector workers in order to avoid controversy in the Labour Party.
I don’t think a pay offer to local government workers which fails to meet the minimum objectives set by our Conference ought to be enough to buy us off!!
Good luck to striking Prison Officers, whose inadequate 2.5% pay award is being staged to save money. Also to UNISON health service members in Sheffield striking against pay cuts.
There is plenty of money for the fat cats. We should be demanding a fair share for public sector workers, resisting Government attempts to divide and rule – and defending our right to speak out in the Labour Party!
I don’t think a pay offer to local government workers which fails to meet the minimum objectives set by our Conference ought to be enough to buy us off!!
Good luck to striking Prison Officers, whose inadequate 2.5% pay award is being staged to save money. Also to UNISON health service members in Sheffield striking against pay cuts.
There is plenty of money for the fat cats. We should be demanding a fair share for public sector workers, resisting Government attempts to divide and rule – and defending our right to speak out in the Labour Party!
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Where now on local government pay?
I find I agree with my comrade and fellow NEC member, Emma Goodall, who thinks that the best response to a pay offer to local government workers which flies in the face of UNISON Local Government Conference policy is a strike ballot.
However there will be those – at the National Joint Council Committee and at the Service Group Executive – who will want to duck a fight because they don’t believe that our members will strike against the new offer. If that is their view then those colleagues should have had the courage to express their opinions at Conference. It is a shame that they did not.
I don’t believe for one moment that our members want to go on strike. No one takes strike action lightly and the sacrifice in terms of lost pay is often greater in the short term than the gains of an improved pay offer. The duty of trade union leadership is to develop strategies to advance our members interests and then to campaign to win the confidence and support of our members to implement those strategies. It is not the role of trade union leadership simply to reflect back to our members their own feelings at any point in time - nor to accept what the employers offer and then come back and sell it to the members.
What will happen if we approach our members now, having twice consulted over the employers’ prevarication, and now consult them on an offer in line with the employers original position (which was to tip local authorities the wink that they should budget for 2.5% on the pay bill, which most duly did)?
If we do so on the basis that “this is the best that can be achieved by negotiation and it will take sustained strike action to get any more” without making a recommendation in line with the agreed policy of the Local Government Service Group Conference then the message that that will give is that the leadership lack confidence in our ability to win a decent pay rise. This is precisely the outcome which would be sought by someone who wanted to undermine the policy agreed at Conference.
Now I agree that this offer is “the best that can be achieved by negotiation” and that “it will take sustained strike action to get any more” – therefore, in the light of the clear policy of the Service Group agreed at Conference, we should ballot for that sustained strike action – if our members don’t want to take that action they can vote “no” and accept the employers’ offer.
If we have a strike ballot the Union will be in a position to campaign in line with Conference policy for a “yes” vote in the ballot, whereas if we run yet another consultation there may be no clear lead – and members will (rightly) read such an abdication of responsibility as a tacit message to accept the offer.
One thing is very clear. Neither the NJC Committee, nor the SGE can change the policy of the Service Group, which is that “we believe that a settlement based on a 2.5% total "envelope" would not be acceptable to our members, however it was packaged. With inflation at an eight year high of 4.8% and further rises in interest rates predicted this would amount to a real and substantial further cut in living standards for Local Government Workers.We further believe that only a substantial campaign of industrial action, wherever possible coordinated with other unions, its likely to produce a successful outcome to this pay campaign.”
Therefore, whether we move, as we should, to a strike ballot or, as I believe we should not, to yet another consultation on this unacceptable offer, branches and individuals must be free to campaign, in either ballot, to persuade members to vote in line with the policy of the Service Group Conference. Which was to issue a clear recommendation for rejection of any offer based on an overall envelope of 2.5% or less.
However there will be those – at the National Joint Council Committee and at the Service Group Executive – who will want to duck a fight because they don’t believe that our members will strike against the new offer. If that is their view then those colleagues should have had the courage to express their opinions at Conference. It is a shame that they did not.
I don’t believe for one moment that our members want to go on strike. No one takes strike action lightly and the sacrifice in terms of lost pay is often greater in the short term than the gains of an improved pay offer. The duty of trade union leadership is to develop strategies to advance our members interests and then to campaign to win the confidence and support of our members to implement those strategies. It is not the role of trade union leadership simply to reflect back to our members their own feelings at any point in time - nor to accept what the employers offer and then come back and sell it to the members.
What will happen if we approach our members now, having twice consulted over the employers’ prevarication, and now consult them on an offer in line with the employers original position (which was to tip local authorities the wink that they should budget for 2.5% on the pay bill, which most duly did)?
If we do so on the basis that “this is the best that can be achieved by negotiation and it will take sustained strike action to get any more” without making a recommendation in line with the agreed policy of the Local Government Service Group Conference then the message that that will give is that the leadership lack confidence in our ability to win a decent pay rise. This is precisely the outcome which would be sought by someone who wanted to undermine the policy agreed at Conference.
Now I agree that this offer is “the best that can be achieved by negotiation” and that “it will take sustained strike action to get any more” – therefore, in the light of the clear policy of the Service Group agreed at Conference, we should ballot for that sustained strike action – if our members don’t want to take that action they can vote “no” and accept the employers’ offer.
If we have a strike ballot the Union will be in a position to campaign in line with Conference policy for a “yes” vote in the ballot, whereas if we run yet another consultation there may be no clear lead – and members will (rightly) read such an abdication of responsibility as a tacit message to accept the offer.
One thing is very clear. Neither the NJC Committee, nor the SGE can change the policy of the Service Group, which is that “we believe that a settlement based on a 2.5% total "envelope" would not be acceptable to our members, however it was packaged. With inflation at an eight year high of 4.8% and further rises in interest rates predicted this would amount to a real and substantial further cut in living standards for Local Government Workers.We further believe that only a substantial campaign of industrial action, wherever possible coordinated with other unions, its likely to produce a successful outcome to this pay campaign.”
Therefore, whether we move, as we should, to a strike ballot or, as I believe we should not, to yet another consultation on this unacceptable offer, branches and individuals must be free to campaign, in either ballot, to persuade members to vote in line with the policy of the Service Group Conference. Which was to issue a clear recommendation for rejection of any offer based on an overall envelope of 2.5% or less.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Employers offers slightly smaller pay cut in real terms - rejoice?
We now have details of a pay offer in local government which is based upon a “pay envelope” of 2.5% (which most Councils budgeted for in the first place and which we totally rejected at UNISON Local Government Conference.)
Clearly UNISON officials knew that this was on the cards and I suppose this explains the lengthy timetable leading up to strike action, about which I expressed some concerns (rather later than other wiser comrades).
If the Retail Price Index was at 4.8% in April then a 2% pay rise was a 2.8% pay cut in real terms, so the pay offer to local government workers is really a 1.4% real pay cut for the lowest paid members on spine point 4 and a 2.225% real terms pay cut for everyone else.
I don’t think that this is acceptable.
Whilst I write this I have to express my disappointment – but not surprise – at the priority given to public sector pay in the report of the TUC General Council to this year’s Congress. (When it gets online it will be here.)
The public sector pay freeze merits one small paragraph deep in the middle of the report. Considerably less space than is given over to the 2012 Olympics!
Our members join unions for many reasons but one of the important ones is to get better pay. Since the public sector is the area of highest union density it is vital to the whole movement that we show that we can deliver decent pay rises for our members.
The TUC General Council know that they will pay lip service to support for the valiant struggle of our brothers and sisters in PCS but that the big unions want to sell below inflation pay increases to our members elsewhere in public services, so they will keep the whole question of public sector pay low key.
But if pay in the most unionised areas of the economy is going to rise more slowly than the less unionised areas then what are we for?
Clearly UNISON officials knew that this was on the cards and I suppose this explains the lengthy timetable leading up to strike action, about which I expressed some concerns (rather later than other wiser comrades).
If the Retail Price Index was at 4.8% in April then a 2% pay rise was a 2.8% pay cut in real terms, so the pay offer to local government workers is really a 1.4% real pay cut for the lowest paid members on spine point 4 and a 2.225% real terms pay cut for everyone else.
I don’t think that this is acceptable.
Whilst I write this I have to express my disappointment – but not surprise – at the priority given to public sector pay in the report of the TUC General Council to this year’s Congress. (When it gets online it will be here.)
The public sector pay freeze merits one small paragraph deep in the middle of the report. Considerably less space than is given over to the 2012 Olympics!
Our members join unions for many reasons but one of the important ones is to get better pay. Since the public sector is the area of highest union density it is vital to the whole movement that we show that we can deliver decent pay rises for our members.
The TUC General Council know that they will pay lip service to support for the valiant struggle of our brothers and sisters in PCS but that the big unions want to sell below inflation pay increases to our members elsewhere in public services, so they will keep the whole question of public sector pay low key.
But if pay in the most unionised areas of the economy is going to rise more slowly than the less unionised areas then what are we for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)