A Christmas Carol by the High Court

Scene:
Any solicitor’s office in the country (except the Strand).
Solicitor:
So, Ms Peasant you have been sacked because you are pregnant and you have come in for a free interview.  Typical of your sort if I may say so.
Client: 
It’s so unfair.  I want to bring a claim.  You do no win no fee don’t you?
Solicitor: 
WE do. The State doesn’t.  Tribunal fees are £1,200.00 win or lose.
Client: 
I haven’t got that sort of money!  I am unemployed.  I’ve been sacked.
Solicitor: 
Come, come now.  I am an employment lawyer.  I know the minimum wage is £6.50 an hour.  Easy to remember; it is one hundredth of what I charge – 200 hours work and you have the fee, unless we need to appeal.  Cut out the foreign holidays. Sack the nanny – she won’t be able to afford the fee to sue you.  My little joke!
Client:  
My Mum looks after the children.  We only just got by when I was working.
Solicitor: 
There I can help you.  You need to prioritise your spending.  The High Court has said so.  Eat your existing children – Swift said that and he was a clever man, but you peasants don’t read you just watch Sky.
Client: 
We don’t have Sky.  Murdoch is nearly as right wing as the High Court.
Solicitor: 
Go down the library and read Swift.
Client: 
They’ve closed the library.
Solicitor:  
Have an abortion.  Save you money and I might be able to get your job back.
Client: 
I don’t want an abortion.  Anyway they’ve closed the clinic.
Solicitor:
Find a rich man.
Client: 
I am married.  My husband was sacked for complaining about my treatment at work.
Solicitor: 
Oh then he has a claim as well then.  Another £1,200.00 mind.
Client:  
I’ve had enough!
Solicitor: 
I advise on the law; I don’t make it.  I want to read to you what the High Court said:
“The question many potential claimants have to ask themselves is how to prioritise their spending; what priority should they give to paying fees in a possible legal claim as against many competing and pressing demands on their finances?”
It goes on a bit but basically do you want to bring a claim or eat and feed and clothe your children?
Client: 
But no-one should have to make that choice in Britain in 2014.
Solicitor:  
That’s where you are wrong.  The court said:
“The question is not whether it is difficult for someone to be able to pay – there must be many claimants in that position – it is whether it is virtually impossible and excessively difficult for them to do so”.
Client:  
That’s wicked.
Solicitor: 
That’s the High Court. Lord Justice Elias is paid £198,674.00 and Mr Justice Foskett £174,481.00 so they know all about having to count the pennies.
Client:
Surely Labour will change all this.
Solicitor: 
Nope.
Client:  
I think I will vote for the Fascists then.
Solicitor:
They tried that in Germany. Didn’t do them much good. Nice rallies mind.
Client leaves.  Solicitor hums the Horst Wessel.  There is a muffled explosion.  The local court is in ruins.

Hat tip Daniel Barnett and Kerry Underwood

(My lesson number one - if you are in work and want justice at work, join a Union  http://www.tuc.org.uk/about-tuc/union-finder)

London Labour Conference 2014 - Question Time Panel

Yesterday was the London Labour Conference 2014 which took place at Hammersmith Town Hall. I will post in more detail on the conference later this week but the picture is of me addressing the "Question Time  with London's MPs, MEPs, AMs and Cllrs" panel in the main hall.

On the panel was Clive Efford MP. Claude Moraes MEP, Val Shawcross AM, Cllr Alice Perry and Cllr Stephen Alambritis. London Labour Vice Chair Linda Perks (and UNISON regional secretary) chaired.

"Conference, Panel, John Gray, UNISON delegate and Chair of the London UNISON Labour political fund, asking about the governance arrangements of London 3rd sector  organisations such as Housing Associations and Charities who are nominally independent but in fact are hugely dependent on public funding, direct or indirect.

Some of whom act in undemocratic and unaccountable ways, such as the London Housing Association called Catalyst, who is currently trying to de-recognise UNISON while also refusing to speak to the union, those who give their senior executives huge pay rises and those who have no meaningful resident or client input in the way they are run.

What can be done to make such organisations in London accountable, democratic and transparent?

Val Shawcross replied that she when she became an Assembly member she was astonished to find that there was some 500 separate Housing Associations in London. Some of them are run well and have tenants on their board but she has concerns about others over issues such as fire safety and diversity. A future Labour London Mayor should make positive progressive requirements over the sector. We may have lost sight of this due to the massive problem of supply.

I had some interesting conversations afterwards and offers of help with the Catalyst issue which I will take up if needed.

For further information on the Union busting by Catalyst click on its name in "labels" under this post.

(hat tip West Hammer Shagufta Nasreen for photo)

Motion on "Union Busting in the UK Housing Association and Charitable Sector"

This motion to our National Service Group conference was passed by Greater London UNISON Housing Association Executive last week.

It is of course completely unacceptable for any employer to attack the human rights and freedoms of their workers.  The fact that in the UK this attack is being joined by a tiny number of rogue Housing Associations and so called "charities" is shaming the whole sector and bringing it into disrepute.

The branch will also be seeing if we can get this motion sent to as many Councils and other public bodies as possible and even the Labour Party conference next year. Enough is enough. If these employers won't respect human rights and accountability then they are simply not fit to receive any form of public money or support.

"This conference notes:-

That a small number of Housing associations and other Charities in our sector are openly hostile to trade unions, carry out American style anti union practices and refuse to recognise trade unions.

The right of free assembly and collective bargaining is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law. Any failure by any employer to honour these rights with regard to trade unions means they do not respect human rights.

We note that most Housing Associations are also registered charities and should share a similar social ethos with regard to good governance and respecting human rights.

Organisations which do not treat their staff with respect will not treat their clients or residents with respect either.

Replacing free and democratic trade unions with internal “staff associations” is historically a central plank of the philosophy called corporatism which has direct links with far right political groups in the UK and abroad.

The sector as a whole is still hugely dependent on public procurement and funding, direct or indirect, while at the same time paying its senior management huge amounts of money.

Many supporters of national charities would be horrified to find out that these charities refuse to recognise or engage with independent trade unions.

There is a huge reputational and financial risk to the whole sector by charities engaging in such anti-trade union busting.

This Conference Calls on the Service Group Executive to:-

Actively support and help campaign against union busting by Housing Associations and Charities.

Draw up a campaign plan on how to organise in Community organisations that we do not currently have trade union recognition.

Call upon Labour Link to examine whether local Councils and a future Labour Government should debar any organisation that does not recognise trade unions from access to public funding.

Call upon the Government to hold an independent public enquiry into the governance and democratic deficit in the charitable sector".

UNISON Members vow to fight Union busting at Catalyst Housing Association

"UNISON members at Catalyst Housing Association reacted with shock to the news that the Head of People and Organisational Development received a 28% increase in salary last year whilst they received a mere 1%.

The members were attending a large, boisterous union meeting called to discuss the Chief Executive, Rod Cahill’s, decision to derecognise UNISON.

A letter of de-recognition was issued last week in response to a letter of complaint from UNISON about bullying of stewards and the unfair treatment of union members at Catalyst.

Members expressed their anger and concerns about their employer’s anti-union stance and are prepared to even consider industrial action in their fight to retain trade union recognition at Catalyst.

“When a legitimate complaint about serious concerns results in an instant letter of de-recognition, you do wonder about that organisation’s governance and accountability”, commented Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss. “Does this mean that Catalyst tenants who complain automatically face eviction?

All Catalyst workers deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as the organisations’ tenants and stakeholders; this is shabby treatment by an employer that is supposedly striving to go from good to great.”

Housing Association Branch Secretary John Gray said "Catalyst have refused to even meet with us to discuss our complaint or their concerns and have given out false and inaccurate information about membership levels.

They claim to have a strong Information and Consultation Committee that was voted in by 100% of the workforce; in actual fact less staff members voted for it than are in the union.

We have also taken legal advice and it is clear that Catalyst has acted unlawfully under international law and human rights.

UNISON always wants to talk to employers and seek agreement where possible. I call on the Board of Catalyst to meet with UNISON and settle this dispute before it gets ugly.”

For Further information or comment please contact:

UNISON Regional Organiser, Colin Inniss

UNISON Housing Associations Branch Secretary , John Gray

Notes for Editors

1. UNISON’s represents over 60,000 members in the Community and Voluntary sector.
2. UNISON has recognition agreements with most of the G15 Housing Associations – London’s 15 largest housing associations.

3. Catalyst Housing Association own and manage over 21,000 properties in London and the South East

4. In 2013/14 Directors of Catalyst received pay increases ranging between 28.7% and 6.8%; frontline staff received a 1% increase in pay.

(hat tip London UNISON Press release)

Union is Strength!!!

Fantastic advert for joining an union. Collective is best and its usually always "better together". A pity that Catalyst Housing Association is so anti-trade union and its senior managment believes in right wing corporatism.

Trade Union victimisation....One Housing Group and Déjà vu?

This Wednesday 23rd April 12.30-1.30pm there will be a protest outside the gross misconduct discipline hearing of suspended Unite convenor, Bryan Kennedy.

This will take place at the One Housing Group Head Office, 100 Chalk Farm Rd, NW1 8EH (next to the Camden Roundhouse).

I can't be there on Wednesday since I have to represent a trade union member out of London that day. I hope that Housing Association (and other) trade unionists will attend to support Bryan. 

Bryan is a top trade unionist and also a dedicated housing worker and anyone who has ever met him would be astonished that any employer is thinking of sacking him. To be clear, Bryan is an intelligent, pragmatic, softly spoken, reasonable and consensus seeking trade unionist who wants to protect and defend his members and is willing if necessary to take on his employer to do so. 

He is facing a hearing on Wednesday where he could lose his job which his employer is saying has nothing to do with his trade union activities such as when he led his members on 11 days of strike action last year. 

Hmmm. While I don't know all the details about the allegations against Bryan I think they are rubbish. You see, One Housing Group has form on these issues.

I remember speaking at a protest meeting in 2009 against the sacking by One Housing Group of its UNISON convener Debbie Cordroy. At this meeting we had local residents, Labour Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Tory Councillor Tim Archer, Former Labour Councillor (and Barrister) Martin Young, UNISON NEC member John McDermott and myself all speaking in favour of Debbie. 

I understand that exactly the same discipline panel that dismissed Debbie Cordrey will be hearing the case against Bryan on Wednesday. 

This just stinks. I have come across senior managers who boast that due to lack of regulation and accountability they can do practically anything they like and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I am in the main a supporter of Housing Associations but genuinely think that due to the lack of probity and democratic governance in many parts of the sector, it is setting the seeds of its destruction. I am constantly surprised how vehemently disliked and mistrusted the sector is amongst a very wide spectrum of our society. 

It is seen by many as an undemocratic and unaccountable oligarchy enriching its senior management team and Board at the expense of residents and workers, feeding off decades of huge public capital grants and benefit subsidy by taxpayers. 

Politicians are also acutely aware of its massive assets base which they think could be better managed. 

We use to talk about the press in this country "drinking in the last chance saloon". I think the same applies to the housing association sector and unless it significantly changes it ways then I honestly don't think it has a long term future as independent self run organisations.

One Housing Group could signal that there could be a change by not acting in a nasty, vindictive, and corporatist manner on Wednesday.  This would be a start.