Where could you go on the internet if you wanted an overlong description of how the agenda for UNISON National Delegate Conference is put together?
Well…thinking back…
In spite of the large number of motions (and Amendments to Rule) which have been ruled out of order by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) this year in the run up to UNISON’s National Delegate Conference, there remain more items on the Preliminary Agenda than it will be possible to debate during Conference week. Whether any particular motion will be debated will depend upon where it is in the order of business.
The order of business is set by the SOC (who have discretion under Rule to do this) but in setting the order of business have regard to the outcome of a prioritisation process. UNISON’s Regions, Self-Organised Groups, Service Groups and the NEC itself express preferences, in order of priority for which motions should be debated.
A Region, for example, can prioritise twelve motions in order. How the Region does this is a matter for the Region. It could be done by the Regional Committee for example. In the Greater London Region it is traditionally done by a straw poll of branches in which the preferences of each branch have equal weight regardless of membership. Regional Self-Organised Groups also get a “vote” in this process.
The top priority of a Region is awarded twelve “points” all the way down to the twelfth priority which gets one “point”. SOC aggregate the scores from all the Regions and other bodies which express preferences and use these to structure the agenda in two ways.
First, only “prioritised motions” (i.e. those which obtain a minimum of one “point” in the process) have any chance at all of being debated at Conference. Non-prioritised motions are not debated, and in general SOC will not allow non-prioritised motions to be part of Composites with prioritised motions.
Secondly, those with the most points generally get debated first. This works in two ways. Some of the highest prioritised motions are timetabled for debate at a specific point in the week. Others sit at the top of the “remaining order of business” also known as the snake.
Where more than one motion on the same topic is prioritised the lower priority motions may be moved up the agenda so that Conference only debates each topic once, and SOC clearly do exercise some judgement about the order of business so that the “points” are not necessarily adhered to too rigidly.
All prioritised motions, no matter how far down the order of business, are available for reprioritisation in the brief period on Friday afternoon when Conference delegates decide by ballot which motions to deal with. Equally, not all prioritised motions (other than those timetabled or very high up the “snake”) are guaranteed to be debated.
Any motions, prioritised or not, which are not debated at Conference (or withdrawn from the agenda by the proposers) are referred at the close of Conference to the National Executive Council (NEC) who determine UNISON policy on the motion (generally by reaffirming existing policy).
Therefore in determining which motions to try to prioritise the following points need to be borne in mind;
Are there important motions which no one else may prioritise but which it may be possible to get some priority in the hope that they can be reprioritised for the Friday afternoon?
Are there important motions which may not attract sufficient support to be guaranteed debate (as has recently happened with motions from the National Black Members self-organised group)?
Are the NEC likely to support or oppose the motion? (bearing in mind that it may be particularly important to prioritise debate on motions opposed by the NEC since Conference is the only opportunity for a debate on such motions)
An alternative approach would simply be to pick what seem to be the twelve most important topics, but since Regions, the NEC and Self-Organised Groups are all likely to prioritise the motions which they themselves are moving (and since these are likely to reflect the key priorities for the Union) this approach risks leaving other issues completely off the agenda.
All of which begs the question of what to actually prioritise…
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Islington on pay
The following Motion put to Islington’s AGM today was passed unanimously, the part in italics was and amendment moved from the floor by someone who felt one day strikes was not enough and we needed to take much more sustained action. It nice to know the membership can be in advance of the leadership even in Islington Branch!
EMERGENCY MOTION ON PAY
The branch AGM notes that the employers have offered only 2.2% which has been rejected by the NJC trade union side.
The branch AGM further notes this is some considerably distance away from the unions claim of 6% and also significantly below the rate of inflation based on RPI which is currently running at over 4%.
The Trade Union Side has agreed to meet with employers again in early April however it is unlikely that the offer would be significantly improved upon.
The branch also believes after the yes vote in last November’s Industrial Action Ballot there is no need for any further consultation with the membership prior to moving to a formal industrial action ballot. If there is a yes vote we need to move to sustained strike action.
The AGM calls for UNISON side of the NJC also the service group executive to move to an industrial action ballot with immediate effect and to coordinate all industrial action with other sector of Unison and other public service unions.
EMERGENCY MOTION ON PAY
The branch AGM notes that the employers have offered only 2.2% which has been rejected by the NJC trade union side.
The branch AGM further notes this is some considerably distance away from the unions claim of 6% and also significantly below the rate of inflation based on RPI which is currently running at over 4%.
The Trade Union Side has agreed to meet with employers again in early April however it is unlikely that the offer would be significantly improved upon.
The branch also believes after the yes vote in last November’s Industrial Action Ballot there is no need for any further consultation with the membership prior to moving to a formal industrial action ballot. If there is a yes vote we need to move to sustained strike action.
The AGM calls for UNISON side of the NJC also the service group executive to move to an industrial action ballot with immediate effect and to coordinate all industrial action with other sector of Unison and other public service unions.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
UNISON's opposition to nuclear power
Call me an 80s retread hippy environmentalist if you will but I find the news that the Government are gung ho for nuclear power alarming. I’ve pointed out before that UNISON is at odds with Gordon Brown on this. UNISON has policy in opposition to nuclear power.
The arguments for nuclear power are predictable ones about job creation and uber-Blairite Hutton says that nuclear power will be the new North Sea oil. North Sea oil was dangerous – but this doesn’t really compare with this. Nuclear power is criminally dangerous and creates radioactive waste which we have no long term plans for.
We do face an energy crisis, but it needs to be tackled by radical reductions in our use of energy and by developing renewables – not by trying to breathe life into the nuclear industry.
Green issues have a higher profile within our Union than ever before – and there are several motions on climate change on the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference which would lend themselves to an appropriate anti-nuclear amendment because nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.
Motion 107 from Camden includes appropriate anti-nuclear sentiments which could be added by amendment to other motions more likely to be prioritised in order to ensure that UNISON’s opposition to nuclear power is clearly restated in the composite on Climate Change which will probably be one of the key debates at this year’s Conference.
The arguments for nuclear power are predictable ones about job creation and uber-Blairite Hutton says that nuclear power will be the new North Sea oil. North Sea oil was dangerous – but this doesn’t really compare with this. Nuclear power is criminally dangerous and creates radioactive waste which we have no long term plans for.
We do face an energy crisis, but it needs to be tackled by radical reductions in our use of energy and by developing renewables – not by trying to breathe life into the nuclear industry.
Green issues have a higher profile within our Union than ever before – and there are several motions on climate change on the Preliminary Agenda for National Delegate Conference which would lend themselves to an appropriate anti-nuclear amendment because nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.
Motion 107 from Camden includes appropriate anti-nuclear sentiments which could be added by amendment to other motions more likely to be prioritised in order to ensure that UNISON’s opposition to nuclear power is clearly restated in the composite on Climate Change which will probably be one of the key debates at this year’s Conference.
As readers of this blog will probably know, only those Conference motions which are prioritised are available for debate and compositing at Conference. Motions from the NEC and Regions are most likely to be prioritised, so amendments to motions 103, 104 and 105 look like a good idea.
(If anyone reading this supports nuclear power I suggest that we bring all the radioactive waste round your house then?)
A bit out of order?
Just a brief note as I am busy working.
I am sure all UNISON members reading this blog will share my disappointment that an apparent bid by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) for our National Delegate Conference to make it into the Guiness Book of Records seems likely to have failed.
It appears that the SOC wanted to be the first ever to rule out of order more motions to National Delegate Conference than they admitted to the agenda. Unfortunately;
(1) (with thanks to the Croydon branch for the maths) just 48.5% of all submissions to Conference have been ruled out of order (it would be cheating to count only those submissions not made by the NEC in order to push the figure above 50%), and;
(2) it appears that there is no such section of the Guiness Book of Records!
More here later about this (more than you want probably...)
I am sure all UNISON members reading this blog will share my disappointment that an apparent bid by the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) for our National Delegate Conference to make it into the Guiness Book of Records seems likely to have failed.
It appears that the SOC wanted to be the first ever to rule out of order more motions to National Delegate Conference than they admitted to the agenda. Unfortunately;
(1) (with thanks to the Croydon branch for the maths) just 48.5% of all submissions to Conference have been ruled out of order (it would be cheating to count only those submissions not made by the NEC in order to push the figure above 50%), and;
(2) it appears that there is no such section of the Guiness Book of Records!
More here later about this (more than you want probably...)
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Can local government workers stomach strike action over pay?
A hat tip (as we bloggers say) to John McDermott for doing some maths about the very limited value of a 2.2% pay offer as has just been made to local government workers. John makes the point that we cannot afford this real pay cut.
Some anonymous comment on an earlier post here has however taken issue with the conclusion which I have drawn that we need national strike action in response to this offer (even if it goes up to 2.5% in the next few weeks).
It’s probably wrong of me but I tend to associate such anonymous comments with a political group noted for both anonymity and hostility to national strike action over public sector pay. However the arguments against strike action will be used by the employers as well as by right-wingers within the movement, and it is important that those of us who are loyal to the interests of UNISON and its members can engage with these arguments.
It is through engaging in debate with our members that we will be able to determine whether we can in fact deliver the action which will be needed to secure a satisfactory pay settlement.
There are those who see the role of trade union leadership as essentially passive – they believe that the leadership should strive to reflect the views of the membership and treat these views as if they were static – like the commentator on this blog who asks if there is the “stomach” for strike action.
I don’t share this perspective. I believe that the role of trade union leadership (which means everyone from General Secretary all the way up to a shop steward) is to seek to develop a strategy which can advance the interests of the members and then to win our members to support that strategy – in part that therefore involves trying to persuade members to take action and to make sacrifices. Whether we can win such arguments depends upon how persuasive and convincing our strategy and our arguments are.
The two main arguments against strike action are (1) that it won’t work and (2) that the costs will outweigh the benefits. These interact of course because no pay strike is likely to end in outright victory (i.e. the employers conceding our full claim) and it is therefore possible to compare the value of what is achieved (in terms of an increase in an initial offer) with the cost of the action to the strikers (in terms of loss of pay).
I have suggested previously on this blog that there is some reasonably persuasive recent historical evidence that national strike action over local government pay can improve local government pay relative to the rest of the economy. A more recent example of the potential effectiveness of national local government strike action is, of course the strike action we took in 2006 over local government pensions – while I was sceptical of the official verdict that this secured a “victory” there can be no doubt that the Government was shifted from its original position.
The evidence is that we do have the industrial muscle to secure a better pay offer (the question obviously is whether we have a strategy to exercise this muscle in the right way – and I will come back to that in a later post).
For members trying to decide, collectively and individually, whether to support a call for strike action, as well as the critical question of how they judge the Union’s strategy and its likely effectiveness, there is also the “cost-benefit analysis” – the comparison of pay lost through strike action with likely gains from taking the action.
One commentator on this blog said “I've worked out that for every day I go on strike the pay offer will have to increase by about 0.5% for me to recover the loss in the days wages in this pay year” and they were answered – in part – by the next commentator who pointed out that “if you do go on strike and management cave in, the 0.5% per day you 'lose' is then made up by the fact that whatever increase you have increases the 'base salary' year on year.”
In fact, if pay is deducted at the rate of 1/260th of annual salary for each day of strike action (as decided in UNISON’s recent legal victory) then that is 0.38% of annual salary for every day of strike action. Four days of strike action would need to see an increase in the employers’ offer of 1.5% in order to make good the loss of earnings in the same pay year – an increase of 0.755% in the employers’ offer would make good the loss within two pay years – an increase of 0.525% in three years (the principle is rather more important than the precise figures).
There are two important caveats to this calculation. The first is that a successful pay strike can have a knock on effect on pay offers in future years, the positive effect of which is not captured by these figures. The second is that these calculations can only be done after the event, whereas the decision about whether or not to support strike action has to be taken (rather obviously) in advance. The members deciding whether or not to take strike action have to make judgements about how much action will be required and what the likely outcome will be – in the public sector in particular these are judgements about politics not about arithmetic.
So what it all comes back to is whether we – the leadership of the Union – can advance a strategy which persuades our members that the sacrifice of strike action is worth making. That is what determines whether there is “the stomach” for strike action. That is what we need to be discussing…
Some anonymous comment on an earlier post here has however taken issue with the conclusion which I have drawn that we need national strike action in response to this offer (even if it goes up to 2.5% in the next few weeks).
It’s probably wrong of me but I tend to associate such anonymous comments with a political group noted for both anonymity and hostility to national strike action over public sector pay. However the arguments against strike action will be used by the employers as well as by right-wingers within the movement, and it is important that those of us who are loyal to the interests of UNISON and its members can engage with these arguments.
It is through engaging in debate with our members that we will be able to determine whether we can in fact deliver the action which will be needed to secure a satisfactory pay settlement.
There are those who see the role of trade union leadership as essentially passive – they believe that the leadership should strive to reflect the views of the membership and treat these views as if they were static – like the commentator on this blog who asks if there is the “stomach” for strike action.
I don’t share this perspective. I believe that the role of trade union leadership (which means everyone from General Secretary all the way up to a shop steward) is to seek to develop a strategy which can advance the interests of the members and then to win our members to support that strategy – in part that therefore involves trying to persuade members to take action and to make sacrifices. Whether we can win such arguments depends upon how persuasive and convincing our strategy and our arguments are.
The two main arguments against strike action are (1) that it won’t work and (2) that the costs will outweigh the benefits. These interact of course because no pay strike is likely to end in outright victory (i.e. the employers conceding our full claim) and it is therefore possible to compare the value of what is achieved (in terms of an increase in an initial offer) with the cost of the action to the strikers (in terms of loss of pay).
I have suggested previously on this blog that there is some reasonably persuasive recent historical evidence that national strike action over local government pay can improve local government pay relative to the rest of the economy. A more recent example of the potential effectiveness of national local government strike action is, of course the strike action we took in 2006 over local government pensions – while I was sceptical of the official verdict that this secured a “victory” there can be no doubt that the Government was shifted from its original position.
The evidence is that we do have the industrial muscle to secure a better pay offer (the question obviously is whether we have a strategy to exercise this muscle in the right way – and I will come back to that in a later post).
For members trying to decide, collectively and individually, whether to support a call for strike action, as well as the critical question of how they judge the Union’s strategy and its likely effectiveness, there is also the “cost-benefit analysis” – the comparison of pay lost through strike action with likely gains from taking the action.
One commentator on this blog said “I've worked out that for every day I go on strike the pay offer will have to increase by about 0.5% for me to recover the loss in the days wages in this pay year” and they were answered – in part – by the next commentator who pointed out that “if you do go on strike and management cave in, the 0.5% per day you 'lose' is then made up by the fact that whatever increase you have increases the 'base salary' year on year.”
In fact, if pay is deducted at the rate of 1/260th of annual salary for each day of strike action (as decided in UNISON’s recent legal victory) then that is 0.38% of annual salary for every day of strike action. Four days of strike action would need to see an increase in the employers’ offer of 1.5% in order to make good the loss of earnings in the same pay year – an increase of 0.755% in the employers’ offer would make good the loss within two pay years – an increase of 0.525% in three years (the principle is rather more important than the precise figures).
There are two important caveats to this calculation. The first is that a successful pay strike can have a knock on effect on pay offers in future years, the positive effect of which is not captured by these figures. The second is that these calculations can only be done after the event, whereas the decision about whether or not to support strike action has to be taken (rather obviously) in advance. The members deciding whether or not to take strike action have to make judgements about how much action will be required and what the likely outcome will be – in the public sector in particular these are judgements about politics not about arithmetic.
So what it all comes back to is whether we – the leadership of the Union – can advance a strategy which persuades our members that the sacrifice of strike action is worth making. That is what determines whether there is “the stomach” for strike action. That is what we need to be discussing…
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Poor pay offer demands strike ballot
Yes – an initial 2.2% pay offer is indeed a “slap in the face” to local government workers. The Trade Union Side was unanimous in condemning the offer, which attaches strings to a basic pay offer below even the current CPI level of 2.5%.
We should be responding with honesty and clarity.
We need to be honest with our members about the rate of inflation – we don’t need to care about the CPI index which does not reflect the cost of living. We have to acknowledge that a pay rise below the Retail Price Index (RPI) will be a real terms pay cut. If 2.2% is a slap in the face, 2.5% will be a poke in the eye.
We also have to be clear that we are not going to get anywhere near a pay rise which keeps pace with real price inflation without national strike action. That is why it is not helpful or encouraging to hear that there will be further negotiations on 2 April. That’s too late.
Our pay rise is due on 1 April. Every day that passes beyond that date in 2008 without moves towards a strike ballot will be a day on which members will start to conclude that we are not serious.
Winning a strike ballot will not be easy and winning a better pay deal will not be easy. We may not win. However if we genuinely believe in the justice of the claim which we have submitted we owe it to our members to offer a strategy which could win us an offer closer to our claim.
I believe that the evidence is that national strike action could do this and that we ought to offer our members the opportunity to support action which can win – and to do so now.
We should be responding with honesty and clarity.
We need to be honest with our members about the rate of inflation – we don’t need to care about the CPI index which does not reflect the cost of living. We have to acknowledge that a pay rise below the Retail Price Index (RPI) will be a real terms pay cut. If 2.2% is a slap in the face, 2.5% will be a poke in the eye.
We also have to be clear that we are not going to get anywhere near a pay rise which keeps pace with real price inflation without national strike action. That is why it is not helpful or encouraging to hear that there will be further negotiations on 2 April. That’s too late.
Our pay rise is due on 1 April. Every day that passes beyond that date in 2008 without moves towards a strike ballot will be a day on which members will start to conclude that we are not serious.
Winning a strike ballot will not be easy and winning a better pay deal will not be easy. We may not win. However if we genuinely believe in the justice of the claim which we have submitted we owe it to our members to offer a strategy which could win us an offer closer to our claim.
I believe that the evidence is that national strike action could do this and that we ought to offer our members the opportunity to support action which can win – and to do so now.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
UNISON Regional Committee and the standing orders for the Regional Council
I knew the title of this post would grab your attention...
I shall be sorry to miss tomorrow’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee (honestly! I enjoy Regional Committees) and shall invite other comrades to let us know here what excitement takes place.
One topic which is covered in the report from the Regional Convenor and Secretary to tomorrow’s meeting is the vexed question of the arrangements for the Standing Orders Committee function for the Regional Council (i.e. who decides what gets admitted to the agenda and what does not).
For those with long memories you may recall reading about this here before.
Long ago when UNISON was young there was a Standing Orders Committee for the Regional Council, a body so engaged by its function that it recommended that it cease to exist and that its functions pass to the Regional Committee.
Eventually, perhaps because the Regional Committee was often admirably liberal in what it would permit to be debated at the Regional Council, officers felt that it was inappropriate that the Regional Committee should fulfil this function, citing a “conflict of interest.”
And, although there are other Regions where such an approach appears not to be a problem, most of those interested in this debate could see the point. The Regional Secretary identified two options for the carrying out of the Standing Orders function – both of them consisting of small sub groups of the Regional Committee (either the Regional Finance Team or the Regional Council Officers Group).
More than a year ago at the Regional Committee a third option was suggested – an elected Standing Orders Committee independent of the Regional Committee. There followed a process of “consultation” with branches which covered only the two options identified by the Regional Secretary and not the third proposed by an experienced and respected Regional Committee member.
A small minority of branches responded and a fair few backed the option which had not even been included in the consultation, but slightly fewer backed one of the other options (giving the job to the Regional Council Officers team) and this was then imposed without any sanction of either the Regional Council or Regional Committee.
To date the Regional Council has not agreed to this change. At the Annual General Meeting last month both options were put to the vote and neither commanded the two thirds majority required to change the rules. Votes were counted but the results were not announced (though it was pretty clear that the option of an elected Standing Orders Committee, for which the case was put more convincingly, commanded the greater support).
In the light of this decision I was hoping to see a compromise suggestion from the Regional leadership, taking seriously their responsibility for unifying the Union in Greater London. Instead I was disappointed to read a proposal that an option which had specifically not been approved by the Regional Council should continue and that the Regional Council Officers should continue to provide the Standing Orders function for the Regional Council.
Whilst technically the Regional Committee may decide to delegate this responsibility in this way, to do so in the face of the Regional Council decision seems bizarre.
I have suggested a possible compromise to the Regional Convenor and Secretary. I hope that the Regional Committee will reflect on this and will try to reach out and unite our Union. We face something of a crisis of activism and engagement in the Region (as evidenced by the disappearance of branch bids to the Regional Pool over the recent period) and this will only change if we all try to reach out and work constructively together.
I wish good luck to all those who go to tomorrow’s Regional Committee hoping to build and strengthen UNISON.
Update on Wednesday 19 May - news from Mabels is that the Regional Committee did agree, by a majority, to delegate its standing orders functions in respect of the Regional Council to the Regional Council Officers group, although the Regional Council itself had not agreed this.
I shall be sorry to miss tomorrow’s meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Committee (honestly! I enjoy Regional Committees) and shall invite other comrades to let us know here what excitement takes place.
One topic which is covered in the report from the Regional Convenor and Secretary to tomorrow’s meeting is the vexed question of the arrangements for the Standing Orders Committee function for the Regional Council (i.e. who decides what gets admitted to the agenda and what does not).
For those with long memories you may recall reading about this here before.
Long ago when UNISON was young there was a Standing Orders Committee for the Regional Council, a body so engaged by its function that it recommended that it cease to exist and that its functions pass to the Regional Committee.
Eventually, perhaps because the Regional Committee was often admirably liberal in what it would permit to be debated at the Regional Council, officers felt that it was inappropriate that the Regional Committee should fulfil this function, citing a “conflict of interest.”
And, although there are other Regions where such an approach appears not to be a problem, most of those interested in this debate could see the point. The Regional Secretary identified two options for the carrying out of the Standing Orders function – both of them consisting of small sub groups of the Regional Committee (either the Regional Finance Team or the Regional Council Officers Group).
More than a year ago at the Regional Committee a third option was suggested – an elected Standing Orders Committee independent of the Regional Committee. There followed a process of “consultation” with branches which covered only the two options identified by the Regional Secretary and not the third proposed by an experienced and respected Regional Committee member.
A small minority of branches responded and a fair few backed the option which had not even been included in the consultation, but slightly fewer backed one of the other options (giving the job to the Regional Council Officers team) and this was then imposed without any sanction of either the Regional Council or Regional Committee.
To date the Regional Council has not agreed to this change. At the Annual General Meeting last month both options were put to the vote and neither commanded the two thirds majority required to change the rules. Votes were counted but the results were not announced (though it was pretty clear that the option of an elected Standing Orders Committee, for which the case was put more convincingly, commanded the greater support).
In the light of this decision I was hoping to see a compromise suggestion from the Regional leadership, taking seriously their responsibility for unifying the Union in Greater London. Instead I was disappointed to read a proposal that an option which had specifically not been approved by the Regional Council should continue and that the Regional Council Officers should continue to provide the Standing Orders function for the Regional Council.
Whilst technically the Regional Committee may decide to delegate this responsibility in this way, to do so in the face of the Regional Council decision seems bizarre.
I have suggested a possible compromise to the Regional Convenor and Secretary. I hope that the Regional Committee will reflect on this and will try to reach out and unite our Union. We face something of a crisis of activism and engagement in the Region (as evidenced by the disappearance of branch bids to the Regional Pool over the recent period) and this will only change if we all try to reach out and work constructively together.
I wish good luck to all those who go to tomorrow’s Regional Committee hoping to build and strengthen UNISON.
Update on Wednesday 19 May - news from Mabels is that the Regional Committee did agree, by a majority, to delegate its standing orders functions in respect of the Regional Council to the Regional Council Officers group, although the Regional Council itself had not agreed this.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
More statistics on pay...
While we're waiting for the Pay Review Body in the NHS and the meeting of the Executive of the National Joint Council in local government, here's a little picture stolen shamelessly from the excellent "Campaign Teacher" to show why the likely offer of 2.5% or so is rubbish.It's not about "breaking the 2% pay norm" now - it's about beating the rate of price inflation. And that's the Retail Price Index (RPI = real price inflation) not the Consumer Price Index (CPI = con-trick price inflation).
Perhaps someone who's a bit more artistic than me can do better with the graphic?
Friday, March 14, 2008
Haringey local government branch AGM
It’s good to learn of progress in negotiations in the dispute over Birmingham’s pay and grading review. I hope that the detail of offers being made (and those being accepted) can be shared more widely in the Union.
Whatever view members in Birmingham take of the current state of negotiations it is clear that the dispute shows that strike action can shift the employers – in other words, strike action works.
This is a point I made (perhaps a little predictably) yesterday to the well attended Annual General Meeting of the Haringey local government branch, at which I spoke about the national local government pay claim, pointing out how our pay has fallen behind rising prices, and how the evidence of the past is that national local government pay strikes can improve the pay of local government workers.
Sonya Howard, from Kensington and Chelsea branch, who also addressed the meeting, gave a wide ranging and well received overview of the challenges facing UNISON in local government.
The branch also agreed a very positive policy to promote and development environmental activism as an integral part of our Union (Green UNISON as it is now being called). Will environmental activism given an impetus to our organisation – and recruit new activists (as our work on the learning agenda has to some extent) – or will it just be more demands upon the time of a few?
Since climate change has destructive potential equivalent in the long term to the threat we faced (rather more immediately) from nuclear war in the 1980s we probably need to pay attention to the issue regardless of its implications for our organisation of course!
Whatever view members in Birmingham take of the current state of negotiations it is clear that the dispute shows that strike action can shift the employers – in other words, strike action works.
This is a point I made (perhaps a little predictably) yesterday to the well attended Annual General Meeting of the Haringey local government branch, at which I spoke about the national local government pay claim, pointing out how our pay has fallen behind rising prices, and how the evidence of the past is that national local government pay strikes can improve the pay of local government workers.
Sonya Howard, from Kensington and Chelsea branch, who also addressed the meeting, gave a wide ranging and well received overview of the challenges facing UNISON in local government.
The branch also agreed a very positive policy to promote and development environmental activism as an integral part of our Union (Green UNISON as it is now being called). Will environmental activism given an impetus to our organisation – and recruit new activists (as our work on the learning agenda has to some extent) – or will it just be more demands upon the time of a few?
Since climate change has destructive potential equivalent in the long term to the threat we faced (rather more immediately) from nuclear war in the 1980s we probably need to pay attention to the issue regardless of its implications for our organisation of course!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Too busy for lay democracy?
Whenever two or more UNISON activists are gathered together you know we’ll end up complaining about how busy we are at some point, it’s right up there with other favourite discussion topics like “improbable victories at disciplinary hearings” and sharing good and bad information about senior HR managers as they progress between employers.
Well today we learned that our paid officials (and particularly our senior paid officials) are much busier than we are (so no doubt we should stop moaning!)
The UNISON Greater London Regional Office has today cancelled, with a little less than one day’s notice, tomorrow’s Annual Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Committee because of ill health.
I understand that we need not fear that a bug has hit dozens of our staff - the ill health in question is only of a couple of key colleagues. I am sure that I will join with every other UNISON member in the Region in sending best wishes to colleagues who are unwell and wishing them a speedy return to good health.
There will be those who will be perplexed that the Region can find no other officials with appropriate seniority or experience to support the meeting proceeding as planned, bearing in mind that delegates representing 80,000 UNISON members in the local government service group in the Greater London Region will have made arrangements to attend.
Obviously without the presence of the Regional Head of Service Group it would not be possible to do everything as well as we would wish – some reports would have to have been deferred. However, any official could have sat beside the Chair and assisted with the basic business of the AGM (elections and so forth). I take it that most readers of this blog are union activists and will appreciate just what an extreme step it is to cancel an Annual Meeting, particularly of such a key Committee (meeting on the brink of a likely pay dispute in UNISON’s largest service group).
I don’t doubt that there will be those who will not receive the message about the cancellation of the meeting at such short notice in spite of the best efforts of the Regional Office to cancel the meeting.
Perhaps however we should be reassured and impressed that all the other members of our Regional Management Team and all of the many experienced and capable officials servicing our members in local government are so busy with work of vital importance that they cannot cancel their commitments tomorrow to enable the Annual Meeting of the Regional Local Government Committee to go ahead…
I really don’t quite know how to feel about this.
Well today we learned that our paid officials (and particularly our senior paid officials) are much busier than we are (so no doubt we should stop moaning!)
The UNISON Greater London Regional Office has today cancelled, with a little less than one day’s notice, tomorrow’s Annual Meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Local Government Committee because of ill health.
I understand that we need not fear that a bug has hit dozens of our staff - the ill health in question is only of a couple of key colleagues. I am sure that I will join with every other UNISON member in the Region in sending best wishes to colleagues who are unwell and wishing them a speedy return to good health.
There will be those who will be perplexed that the Region can find no other officials with appropriate seniority or experience to support the meeting proceeding as planned, bearing in mind that delegates representing 80,000 UNISON members in the local government service group in the Greater London Region will have made arrangements to attend.
Obviously without the presence of the Regional Head of Service Group it would not be possible to do everything as well as we would wish – some reports would have to have been deferred. However, any official could have sat beside the Chair and assisted with the basic business of the AGM (elections and so forth). I take it that most readers of this blog are union activists and will appreciate just what an extreme step it is to cancel an Annual Meeting, particularly of such a key Committee (meeting on the brink of a likely pay dispute in UNISON’s largest service group).
I don’t doubt that there will be those who will not receive the message about the cancellation of the meeting at such short notice in spite of the best efforts of the Regional Office to cancel the meeting.
Perhaps however we should be reassured and impressed that all the other members of our Regional Management Team and all of the many experienced and capable officials servicing our members in local government are so busy with work of vital importance that they cannot cancel their commitments tomorrow to enable the Annual Meeting of the Regional Local Government Committee to go ahead…
I really don’t quite know how to feel about this.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Against immigration controls
Today the Government introduced a “points system” to restrict migration from outside the EU. Trade unionists should give this “nul points”.
Some in the labour movement may secretly welcome restrictions on immigration, believing that we should prioritise reducing the supply of labour in order to reduce downward pressure on wages.
UNISON policy is a little more advanced. UNISON believes;a) that no worker should be classed as illegal; b) all workers have a right to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
That’s why the Union focuses on organising migrant workers.
When it comes to immigration there are those in the labour movement who understand the progressive position adopted by trade unions such as UNISON and those who don’t.
Mass migration isn’t going away any time soon – and there is no reason why socialists and trade unionists should wish that it would. We don't set ourselves in opposition to workers coming from other countries.
Historically craft unions could try to enhance their bargaining power by restricting the supply of labour - but general unions (which is what we are really) have very limited scope to do this. Even if it were possible for us to lobby succesfully to restrict immigration in order to reduce labour supply and drive up wages, the political consequences of pandering to racism would impose unacceptable long term costs upon our movement.
We need to organise the workers who are here to be organised.
We need to continue to build alliances for justice for migrant workers – but we also need to see the trade unions taking on New Labour’s racist immigration policies in public.
Where is the public opposition from the trade unions to today’s development? Here? Here? Here?
Some in the labour movement may secretly welcome restrictions on immigration, believing that we should prioritise reducing the supply of labour in order to reduce downward pressure on wages.
UNISON policy is a little more advanced. UNISON believes;a) that no worker should be classed as illegal; b) all workers have a right to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
That’s why the Union focuses on organising migrant workers.
When it comes to immigration there are those in the labour movement who understand the progressive position adopted by trade unions such as UNISON and those who don’t.
Mass migration isn’t going away any time soon – and there is no reason why socialists and trade unionists should wish that it would. We don't set ourselves in opposition to workers coming from other countries.
Historically craft unions could try to enhance their bargaining power by restricting the supply of labour - but general unions (which is what we are really) have very limited scope to do this. Even if it were possible for us to lobby succesfully to restrict immigration in order to reduce labour supply and drive up wages, the political consequences of pandering to racism would impose unacceptable long term costs upon our movement.
We need to organise the workers who are here to be organised.
We need to continue to build alliances for justice for migrant workers – but we also need to see the trade unions taking on New Labour’s racist immigration policies in public.
Where is the public opposition from the trade unions to today’s development? Here? Here? Here?
Right wing attack on Local Government Pensions
The saloon-bar Tories of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (linked to shadowy Tory backers the Midlands Industrial Council) sometimes produce data of which we can make use – but today they are seeking some cheap publicity by having a go at the cost of our Local Government Pension Scheme.
They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.
Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.
Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.
Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?
No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)
Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??
They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.
Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.
Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.
Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?
No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)
Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Local Government Pay - lessons from the past...
I am sorry if I am becoming obsessive about local government pay – but then this is an unashamedly trade union related blog, so I don’t imagine you’re reading it primarily for its entertainment value.
My last post looked at the statistics which show how the real earnings of local government workers have been declining since our last national pay strike – and consequent settlement – in 2002. (I know that I am simplifying things massively in both that post and this – but I think that’s necessary).
The question of course is what to do about this. I think we should look at evidence about what has happened in the past, and try to work out from this evidence what might happen in the future. One valuable source of historical information on local government pay is the report of the Local Government Pay Commission.
It’s four and a half years old of course, but it still contains some useful data, such as the table above, which shows the relationship between NJC pay settlements and earnings growth in private sector services between 1988 and 2002.
My last post looked at the statistics which show how the real earnings of local government workers have been declining since our last national pay strike – and consequent settlement – in 2002. (I know that I am simplifying things massively in both that post and this – but I think that’s necessary).
The question of course is what to do about this. I think we should look at evidence about what has happened in the past, and try to work out from this evidence what might happen in the future. One valuable source of historical information on local government pay is the report of the Local Government Pay Commission.
It’s four and a half years old of course, but it still contains some useful data, such as the table above, which shows the relationship between NJC pay settlements and earnings growth in private sector services between 1988 and 2002.
This shows that for most of that period, NJC pay settlements were below the rate of earnings growth in private sector services – the exceptions are three consecutive years in the early 1990s (1990-92) and 2002 itself (which was the last settlement before the Pay Commission collated this data).
What accounts for these periods of relatively rapid pay increase in local government? Well, at the risk (again) of oversimplifying, it is pretty obvious that the national pay strikes in 1989 and again in 2002 are both associated with brief periods in which local government pay accelerates above its general trend, which is to grow more slowly than earnings in the private services sector.
Successful national strike action can secure a better pay settlement in the year in which it is taken but can also have a knock on effect for a little while. Without occasional national strike action, local government pay will tend to fall behind. So, I think, we do need to begin to prepare for national strike action.
The question then is, how are we going to organise this to win, in circumstances which are certainly far less favourable than they were in 1989…?
What accounts for these periods of relatively rapid pay increase in local government? Well, at the risk (again) of oversimplifying, it is pretty obvious that the national pay strikes in 1989 and again in 2002 are both associated with brief periods in which local government pay accelerates above its general trend, which is to grow more slowly than earnings in the private services sector.
Successful national strike action can secure a better pay settlement in the year in which it is taken but can also have a knock on effect for a little while. Without occasional national strike action, local government pay will tend to fall behind. So, I think, we do need to begin to prepare for national strike action.
The question then is, how are we going to organise this to win, in circumstances which are certainly far less favourable than they were in 1989…?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Fed up with falling pay :(
I was pleased to be invited to speak yesterday to the AGM of the Southwark branch of UNISON, in connection with which I was reading some briefing notes produced by UNISON HQ in support of the local government pay claim.
These made the sound point that price rises rather than our pay claims are what is driving inflation (although I did feel a reference to the price of haircuts made me needlessly self-conscious…)
Anyway, it got me looking at labour market statistics, which led me to think that prices certainly have gone up – the all items Retail Price Index having increased by 17.3% between 2002 and 2007. That means roughly that each pound we earned in 2007 could buy what eighty five pence would have bought five years before.
Earnings across the economy as a whole have kept ahead of prices (though not by much) – having increased by 20.6% over the same period, so on average workers are a little less than 3% better off in material terms over those five years. This is what an increase “in real terms” means – it means you can buy more than you could before.
However, taking a fixed point on the local government pay spine (say SCP 28), that has increased by just 15.5% between 1 April 2002 to 1 April 2007, from £19,776 to £22,845. So a local government worker stuck at the top of a grade for those five years is actually worse off in real terms (by 1.5%) than we were five years ago. That means that our salaries are only buying us 98.5% of the goods and services we could afford when we settled the 2002 pay dispute (that's a pay cut "in real terms").
So not only are we falling behind average earnings (by four and a half per cent over the five year period) which pushes us down the “pay league” we are actually worse off than we were. A 6% pay rise (bringing SCP 28 up to £24,216), with the RPI at 4%, in the coming year, would put our pay a grand total of half a per cent higher “in real terms” than it was in 2002.
Implementation of our full claim would just lead to us “catching up” with rising prices, it wouldn’t come near to “matching up” with increasing average earnings. I think we had better do something about this…
These made the sound point that price rises rather than our pay claims are what is driving inflation (although I did feel a reference to the price of haircuts made me needlessly self-conscious…)
Anyway, it got me looking at labour market statistics, which led me to think that prices certainly have gone up – the all items Retail Price Index having increased by 17.3% between 2002 and 2007. That means roughly that each pound we earned in 2007 could buy what eighty five pence would have bought five years before.
Earnings across the economy as a whole have kept ahead of prices (though not by much) – having increased by 20.6% over the same period, so on average workers are a little less than 3% better off in material terms over those five years. This is what an increase “in real terms” means – it means you can buy more than you could before.
However, taking a fixed point on the local government pay spine (say SCP 28), that has increased by just 15.5% between 1 April 2002 to 1 April 2007, from £19,776 to £22,845. So a local government worker stuck at the top of a grade for those five years is actually worse off in real terms (by 1.5%) than we were five years ago. That means that our salaries are only buying us 98.5% of the goods and services we could afford when we settled the 2002 pay dispute (that's a pay cut "in real terms").
So not only are we falling behind average earnings (by four and a half per cent over the five year period) which pushes us down the “pay league” we are actually worse off than we were. A 6% pay rise (bringing SCP 28 up to £24,216), with the RPI at 4%, in the coming year, would put our pay a grand total of half a per cent higher “in real terms” than it was in 2002.
Implementation of our full claim would just lead to us “catching up” with rising prices, it wouldn’t come near to “matching up” with increasing average earnings. I think we had better do something about this…
Strike action works
UNISON members – taking action with other trade unionists – have achieved some success in a dispute with our largest English local authority employer.
UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.
When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.
It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.
However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.
This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…
UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.
When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.
It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.
However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.
This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…
LGPS Valentine's Day message...
Like most of you, dear readers, the laying of Statutory Instruments before Parliament was not foremost in my mind on Valentine’s Day.
Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.
Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.
For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.
In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).
Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;
“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”
Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)
The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.
This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?
I await the next update…
Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.
Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.
For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.
In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).
Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;
“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”
Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)
The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.
This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?
I await the next update…
Friday, February 15, 2008
London UNISON Labour Link Election
It that time of year again when London region holds its Labour Link elections. Once again we have a choice to elect socialists who will stand for a Labour Link that will take UNISON policy’s into the Labour Party and fincially support MP’s and other representatives though constituency devlopment plans etc who support UNISON policies. For a change to the current leadership of the regional Labour Link who just want the link to be a supporters club for the Brown Government.
The following candidates are being supported by London UNISON Labour left Network for Labour Link elections in The London region.
Regional Committee Seats (Female)
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Felicity Irwin
Helen Martin
Pam Woods
Regional Committee (Male)
Andrew Berry
Phil Lewis
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Heenal Rajani
National Labour Link Forum (Female)
Lucy Anderson
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Helen Martin
Pam Woods
National Labour Link Forum (Male)
Sean Fox
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Labour Party Conference
Katrina Hoogendam
Standing Orders Committee
Andrew Berry
The ballot papers have been sent to the Labour Link Officer or Branch Secretary, the deadline to return them in is 29th Feb. If you can’t locate them contact the regional office.
Also don’t forget to get Branch Delegates elected to the Labour Link Forum taking place on the 26th Feb 4-6pm, House of Commons. Deadline for Branches to register there delegates is 22nd February.
The following candidates are being supported by London UNISON Labour left Network for Labour Link elections in The London region.
Regional Committee Seats (Female)
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Felicity Irwin
Helen Martin
Pam Woods
Regional Committee (Male)
Andrew Berry
Phil Lewis
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Heenal Rajani
National Labour Link Forum (Female)
Lucy Anderson
Jacqui Brown
Katrina Hoogendam
Helen Martin
Pam Woods
National Labour Link Forum (Male)
Sean Fox
Daniel Nichols
Francis Prideaux
Labour Party Conference
Katrina Hoogendam
Standing Orders Committee
Andrew Berry
The ballot papers have been sent to the Labour Link Officer or Branch Secretary, the deadline to return them in is 29th Feb. If you can’t locate them contact the regional office.
Also don’t forget to get Branch Delegates elected to the Labour Link Forum taking place on the 26th Feb 4-6pm, House of Commons. Deadline for Branches to register there delegates is 22nd February.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
February 14th - Groundhog Day for UNISON
Yes!
We have delivered a Valentines Card to the Government…
Last year it was the local government employers.
In 2002 we sent a card to all MPs, in 2005 only to Scottish MPs.
What an inspired and original tactic…
We have delivered a Valentines Card to the Government…
Last year it was the local government employers.
In 2002 we sent a card to all MPs, in 2005 only to Scottish MPs.
What an inspired and original tactic…
A tale of two mergers...
Interesting to see two contrasting union mergers announced today. Over on the class struggle wing of the movement members of the OILC are joining forces with the RMT, meanwhile in the quieter pastures of social partnership ACM and ATL have come to an agreement which Brendan Barber describes as “an imaginative new form of union co-operation” although it looks like a carbon copy of the UNISON/FDA vehicle “Managers in Partnership” only for the education rather than the health sector.
Clearly there is room in the movement for both approaches to building trade unionism, but my heart is certainly with the comrades joining the RMT. Offshore workers had been badly let down by the union movement when they were forced to create their own union twenty years ago – and it is good to see the OILC coming back to a TUC affiliated union.
Clearly there is room in the movement for both approaches to building trade unionism, but my heart is certainly with the comrades joining the RMT. Offshore workers had been badly let down by the union movement when they were forced to create their own union twenty years ago – and it is good to see the OILC coming back to a TUC affiliated union.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
More fun at the UNISON NEC
Having already posted some of the main items of debate at today’s meeting of the UNISON NEC, I’ll just mention a few other topics before the excitement of the day overcomes me.
Among the subjects covered by our General Secretary in a wide ranging report were the following.
UNISON will be protesting about the conduct of (former trade union official) Kim Howells, who got himself photographed alongside a Colombian military unit noted for killing trade unionists.
We will be encouraging members to lobby their MPs to support agency workers by staying at work on a Friday afternoon to back the Private Members’ Bill on 22 February. Lobby your MP now!
UNISON, together with Searchlight and the Daily Mirror, will be backing a major anti-BNP campaign in the run up to the May elections.
In response to a question, Dave confirmed that a campaign against the victimisation of Karen Reissman is now being led by the North West Region. He also offered to discuss with my fellow London NEC member, and Newham UNISON Branch Secretary, Irene Stacey, what further support to offer to victimised Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.
For those with an interest in internal trade union matters I can report that we had a split vote on whether or not to approve a report on internal disciplinary matters, with a majority of those voting approving the report but a larger number of NEC members either not present or not voting.
I was also assured, having made representations at the request of the Greater London Regional Committee about the permissibility of jobsharing seats on the TUC delegation that the composition of the delegation would be reviewed.
A full report will be with London branches in the next couple of days.
Update on Thursday – the official report is now online here.
Among the subjects covered by our General Secretary in a wide ranging report were the following.
UNISON will be protesting about the conduct of (former trade union official) Kim Howells, who got himself photographed alongside a Colombian military unit noted for killing trade unionists.
We will be encouraging members to lobby their MPs to support agency workers by staying at work on a Friday afternoon to back the Private Members’ Bill on 22 February. Lobby your MP now!
UNISON, together with Searchlight and the Daily Mirror, will be backing a major anti-BNP campaign in the run up to the May elections.
In response to a question, Dave confirmed that a campaign against the victimisation of Karen Reissman is now being led by the North West Region. He also offered to discuss with my fellow London NEC member, and Newham UNISON Branch Secretary, Irene Stacey, what further support to offer to victimised Newham UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan.
For those with an interest in internal trade union matters I can report that we had a split vote on whether or not to approve a report on internal disciplinary matters, with a majority of those voting approving the report but a larger number of NEC members either not present or not voting.
I was also assured, having made representations at the request of the Greater London Regional Committee about the permissibility of jobsharing seats on the TUC delegation that the composition of the delegation would be reviewed.
A full report will be with London branches in the next couple of days.
Update on Thursday – the official report is now online here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)