UNISON Community Conference 2023 - Day 2

I posted on Day 1 here on the UNISON annual Seminar/conference for Community (Housing Association & Voluntary sector workers). Which went pretty well. 

Denise and I started the 2nd day leafleting delegates as they arrived for conference and chatting to them about us standing in the forthcoming UNISON NEC elections. 

Supporters of our opponents were there, handing out leaflets, which is fair enough, however they were being supplemented by local non UNISON members, selling ultra left papers and some (not all) were being typically aggressive and intimidating. Water off a duck's back to me. 

I welcomed the opportunity to explain to delegates why I walked out of conference last year due to the NECs imposturer President being there.  https://www.johnslabourblog.org/2022/03/why-we-walked-out-of-unison-community.html

Check out my account of the day based on my twitter feed below:-

Conference opened with a welcome speech by our Chair followed by standing orders report (some very nice words and gift of flowers to long serving @unisontheunion staff who are retiring). Next, our
@UNISONCommVol annual report was accepted.

Then motions & amendments. Powerful arguments & sharing of personal experiences- Young Members, fire & rehire. Sick pay in Social care & levels of sick pay.

My Greater London Vol org branch colleague @jcreed551 moves his branch motion on the outrage that many low paid workers are being charged for their own #DBS checks!

Motion 7: Championing a real #livingwage for Community. This motion had a bumper of great speakers - low paid workers telling it as it is...especially Denise Thomas my NEC running mate.

More imp motions & debates on social care, charity sector pay, women in community, staff crisis, survival of LGBT+ services, regional development and legacy of year #disabled worker.

There was a standing ovation for our long standing, Cymru Wales, NEC member, Sian Stockham, a low paid care worker, on the announcement she had been awarded an OBE. 

Conference is now over. At station with my branch and employer colleague @JoeOgundemuren. It was great to hear so many young members from London and elsewhere speaking & participating in our
@unisontheunion democracy. 

There was some great debates but disappointing that a small number of speakers chose to spend all their time attacking the Labour Party rather than the Tories. Then they all finished their speeches calling for unity? Shows their priorities I suppose. 

in-UNISON - A wake up call on our SGE elections: Gordon McKay

(This is a really important post by a current UNISON NEC member, our former President and front line NHS hospital worker. Please share). 

"The way in which UNISON moves forward as the largest trade union in the UK will take a significant, but not completely final, stride in the next few months as members decide who they are going to put in charge of their Service Groups, the industry wide bodies who set UNISON policy on pay, terms and conditions, and all matters relating to members interests in that industry.

For the first time since the formation of UNISON in 1993 power last year transferred to a group known as Time for Real Change. This group is made up various hard left groups such as the Socialist Workers Party, and some on the extreme of the Labour Party, including some recently expelled from Labour.

The Socialist Workers Party, one of the central groupings of Time for Real Change describe themselves as seeking ‘revolutionary change’ in Britain and admit they organise through strikes. In the last UK Parliamentary General Election they stood in, across the country they attracted a total share of the vote of 0.1%. 

With that level of appeal to ordinary working people one wonders how they have come to take control of UNISON with 1.3 million members working in public services. 

The answer lies in the lack of member participation and in the inability of those who would wish to challenge them to motivate members to take an active interest in their union and to vote in elections. 

Where the core views of UNISON members lie was shown in 2021 when Christina McAnea was elected as UNISONs first ever female General Secretary beating the Time for Real Change candidate by over 18,000 votes. 

Such engagement however does not transfer to other UNISON elections, and seats can be won on UNISON’s National Executive and its Service Groups on turnouts of 2 to 3%, which means elections are currently determined by the highly politically motivated, particularly those whose interests lie in areas wider than representing members. 

It was this level of turnout which saw Time for Real Change win UNISONs National Executive elections.

In the forthcoming Service Group elections, held in April and May, UNISON members need to make a choice. 

It is whether to leave their ballot papers uncompleted and have no say in how the trade union they pay into every payday organises on their behalf and leave decisions to the unrepresentative few, or to engage with their trade union and ensure their unions voice is one they have helped construct. 

The responsibility to get members engaged however lies not just with the members themselves but lies equally, if not more so, with those who believe they reflect the views of UNISON members across the UK. 

There are less than three months until UNISON members start to receive ballot papers in the post or by email. 

Members will decide whether they want their union to organise to speak up for them and public services, to campaign for and win better pay, and to achieve safer working environments, or whether they want their union to be engaged in permanent revolution and to be used as weapons in political struggles.

UNISON members have shown they make people’s lives better. It is now for those who believe they are the representative voice of those public service workers to step up to the plate and make the case why those workers should vote for them. 

If they do, there are successes for every public service worker to be gained, If they let those members down the responsibility is ours. 

Elections are not won in the weeks of voting, particularly as if most people don’t vote in the first five days after receiving their ballot papers they won’t vote at all. They are won by candidates telling members now they are standing, by telling them now what their platform is, why it is important to vote, and why it is important for each and every member that those leading their union reflect their views. 

Candidates need to be getting out their message now, by every route they can and encouraging others to assist in spreading that message. The alternative is to sit for the next ten years telling each other how unfair it all is. 

UNISON members deserve better than that. 

Christina McAnea enthused UNISON members by the fact she reflected what mattered to them and was their voice, it is now for others to do the same".

UNISON lay leadership in East Midlands "tell it as it is" on attempt to destroy our unions democracy & sack our General Secretary

Well done the East Midlands Regional Convenor Team for this. A number of other Regional Teams have sent similar advice to branches. The Greater London Regional Convenor Team (which I am one of) sent a request to the new "Presidential team" and the London NEC members asking them to explain their actions.

Of course we never got even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, never mind a reply.

This is an attempt to sack Christina, our recently elected first ever female general secretary, destroy our union's ability to defend members and hand it over to ultra left political extremists

"Dear Branch Secretary 

 We are writing to you following a letter circulated last week by signatories representing the ‘Time for Real Change’ faction currently in control of the UNISON NEC. 

 We have no desire to enter ‘tit for tat’ letters game but some glaring omissions could result in inaccurate assumptions being reached if not corrected. 

What’s in Dispute? 

 As you are probably aware ‘Time for Real Change’ voted to approve 6 motions at the last NEC meeting. The motions are largely designed to achieve two objectives. Firstly, the NEC is attempting to subvert a set of rules that relate to holding of office in circumstances where a member ceases to be a ‘full member’ of the union. 

Their motion turns the existing set of rules on their head creating a set of new conditions that will allow activists, as distinct from members, to maintain elected of office in the event they are dismissed and no longer remain in employment. The motion not only creates an unhelpful division where activists and members are treated differently but fails to safeguard against the type of dismissals that most reasonable people might regard as being entirely justified. 

For example, under the motion adopted by ‘Time for Real Change’ a member elected to a national committee, who was subsequently dismissed for bullying and harassment of female colleagues, would automatically retain their seat even when most ordinary members might regard their behaviour being inconsistent with a national union role. 

 We think that’s a bad rule change but whether you think it good or bad is to an extent slightly missing the point. Rules in our union can only be amended National Delegate Conference. 

The NEC can interpret rules where there is doubt, conflict or dispute. But it does not have the power to simply take a rule and overturn it because they disagree with it, or they find it represents an unhelpful obstruction to their own interests. 

 To allow this to happen is to condone a direct attack on the democracy of our union. Secondly, the remaining motions when taken together amount to little more than a crude attempt to confirm power and control in the hands of the ‘Time for Real Change’ faction. 

Sadly it’s not a surprise, but the time trodden route of entryist movements, a tactic used to steer organisations along a route of ultraleft ideology. 

But we’re not a political party to be infiltrated but a democratic union who’s rules protect the rights of all union members. Power in our union has always been shared to guarantee that everyone has a voice. 

It isn’t an accident that our rules are structured this way it was intentional to guarantee that we remain representative of our members not dominated by one strand of opinion or interest. 

Service Group Executives hold responsibility for bargaining and industrial issues. The NEC oversees the strategic direction of the union, setting our priorities and delivering on conference policy. And our General Secretary, Christina McAnea, has been elected by our members to lead our union. Each hold power in their own right. 

But our culture has been one of partnership where all sections of the union work together operating collectively as a unit working in the interests of our members. 

 The motions are deliberately designed to alter the role of the General Secretary reducing Christina from an elected Leader to that of a Chief Executive. Paid to do what she is told by her political masters ‘Time for Real Change’. 

Not only does this of end our members who overwhelmingly voted for her to be General Secretary but it serves to tighten the ultra-lefts grip on control of the union. 

 Legal Advice 

 The Union initially obtained legal opinion to determine if the NEC had the power to adopt the motions from Barrister Stuart Brittenden. He said the NEC were acting ‘ultra vires’ or outside of their powers. 

‘Time for Real Change’, as their email explains, obtained legal opinion from Lord Hendy QC who disagreed with Bittenden. In the opinion of Hendy QC the NEC could legitimately act to pass the motions. What ‘Time for Real Change’ conveniently omitted from their letter is that the Union obtain a third legal opinion this time from Michael Ford QC who is arguable the foremost authority on such matters. Ford QC disagreed with both Brittenden and Hendy QC. 

Well, there’s a surprise, three lawyers all of whom disagree with each other! 

Ford QC thought two of the motions [1] [4] were of insignificance and therefore didn’t consider their effect. On the remaining four he decided two were ‘ultra vires’ and the remaining two required further investigation. 

 Motion 2 is the motion that drains Christina McAnea of her powers. He found it to be ultra vires stating: “the motion [sic] would be at odds with the Rules and how the post is portrayed to the membership if a permanent committee of the NEC could strip her of her most important functions or subject her to control in her day-to-day activities.” 

 “The members voted for the General Secretary in a large national ballot, in the knowledge of the importance of that post. Not all members of the NEC are appointed by national ballot and, perhaps more significantly, there is no membership ballot for the office of President or Vice-President, who are elected from within the NEC to what are described as honorary posts. 

Yet, on the natural reading of resolution (2), the Presidential Team has now replaced the important functions of the General Secretary (or is able to exercise day-to-day direction and control over her work). This seems an unlikely result from the perspective of the ordinary member.” 

 He also found Motion 6 ultra vires. The motion protects the right of activist dismissed by their employer to retain office. He said: “The effect of the resolution is, therefore, that a member dismissed by their employer (a) continues to be a member until the NEC decides otherwise or he or she resigns; and (b) continues (i) to be eligible to hold office and (iii) to hold any existing office unless and until the NEC decides otherwise or the member resigns. 

“This resolution runs counter to the existing meaning and effect of the Rules.” 

Whether Hendy or Ford are ultimately proved right would be a matter for the courts which, we might add, would come at great expense to the union. Isn’t it far better that such matters are resolved by us, UNISON members and activists, using our internal democratic structures? 

 If ‘Time for Real Change’ want to introduce a new rule to preserve the rights of dismissed NEC members, or they wish to redefine the role of the General Secretary, they have the power to bring NEC rule amendments to NDC 2022. Conference can then decide the merits of the respective arguments with the benefit opposing sides setting out their case. 

 Finally, we would repeat our request for a special meeting of Regional Council to debate these matters so all members hear a full exchange of opinion on what is an important issue for the future of our union. If you have not already done so join our call by writing to our Regional Secretary, Chris Jenkinson, c.jenkinson@unison.co.uk. 

 Thank you in anticipation of your solidarity.

Thank you in anticipation of your solidarity.

Roz Norman (Joint Regional Convenor) Chris Tansley (Joint Regional Convenor), James Minto (Deputy Regional Convenor) Emma Proctor (Deputy Regional Convenor) Lynn Booth (Deputy Regional Convenor)

Latest on extremists attempts to destroy our union's democracy, stop us winning strike ballots over pay (& take our money)

Check out personal report below by former UNISON President and current NEC member Maureen Le Marinel. 

It is incredible in the midst of us mobilising to take on the Tories and win strike ballots over pay, the ultra left are attacking our General Secretary and deliberately provoking a civil war. 

"This is my personal page, the views are my own.

‘UPDATE’ on NEC Resolutions.

Many of you will have seen the ‘Opinion’ provided by John Hendy QC to the NEC, as requested by the Presidential Team, which has been posted by the “Time for Real Change’ organisation. Firstly I believe that as this ‘opinion’ was provided to the NEC it is ‘privileged’ and not for wider circulation, until the NEC had agreed it could be and the NEC should have had the opportunity to discuss and fully understand the content in a ‘legal’ sense, we are not lawyers. This was taken away from us by the publication.

The NEC was provided with ‘legal advice’ on the resolutions by Stuart Brittenden on the 5th October with verbal confirmation of this at the NEC meeting on the 6th October, this I was informed was privileged and not for wider circulation. Following the NEC meeting I reported that the legal advice conflicted with view of the Presidential Team, and as I now understand it, their ‘legal advice’ prior to the NEC meeting on 6th October which I asked for at the meeting and have again requested, as in the Statement from ‘Time for Real Change’ on the 7th October confirmed that they had legal advice and also in tweets from John McDonald MP also confirmed that “they had legal advice at every stage”.

Since receiving the email from the Vice Presidents containing Hendy’s advice this morning, the NEC has received an email from the General Secretary, which contains updated legal advice from Stuart Brittenden on Hendy’s advice. Brittenden’s advice is ‘privileged’ so again I cannot share this with you, but the upshot is that it reaffirms his original advice and conflicts with Hendy’s advice. The email also contains another document of an ‘independent’ legal view from a leading QC Michael Ford, which also does not accept that Hendy’s advice is ‘definitive’ as the Vice Presidents say it is and that is put out by the ‘Time for Real Change’.

I am told that I am bound by ‘collective responsibility’ by the Vice Presidents on the NEC decisions, but as I said earlier this is my personal FB Page and these are my personal views and I make them in a ‘personal capacity’ a term I have never used but now feel that I need to to protect my position and one widely used by members of ‘Time for Real Change’ when they do not agree with decisions made and speak against them on various platforms.

My personal view is that given the information that I have there are still serious questions on the validity and the legality of the decisions taken by certain members of the NEC in respect of the resolutions of the 6th October and I believe that I am duty bound to inform members of the union of this under my duties and responsibilities as a member of our union and a member of the NEC under rule.

I ask that you do not accept the spin’ of ‘Time for Real Change’ and that you continue to support the position taken by a number of NEC members including me as we continue to question the validity of the resolutions and their breaching UNISON Rule.

Thank you".

Other posts here and here

What happens if you don't vote?

I think that we should never forget what will happen if you don't vote.
"Make sure you have YOUR say in London's future. Register to vote or for a Postal Vote at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk. Put the date 22 May in your diary.

We Are The Many - Hope Not Hate

Please click here and sign this Hope Not Hate letter for tomorrow's Daily Mirror :-

To: The Editor, Daily Mirror
From:

We Are The Many

Today, the violent English Defence League will hold demonstrations in towns and cities across our country, trying to spread their message of hate. By blaming all Muslims for the terrible murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the EDL will attempt to whip up a climate of fear and violence towards the Muslim community in Britain.

But the EDL will fail. They will fail because we, the British people, reject their ignorance.

The EDL and Islamic extremists are more similar to each other than to us. They share a violent, hate-fuelled desire for conflict and war, and we will not let either group tear our country apart.

We condemn the shameful rise in anti-Muslim violence since Drummer Rigby's killing. The fair-minded majority of Britons understand that a community cannot be blamed for the actions of just two. We know that the EDL does not speak for all Britain, just as we know that Muslim extremists do not speak for all Muslims.

We, the British people, shun the EDL's message of hate today because they do not speak for us. We are confident that HOPE will prevail. It will prevail because they are the few, and we are -- and always will be -- the many.

Yours,

Moanie fibbing miserabalists and the LGPS 2014

Crikey - I thought that I have seen it all, but there is some really stupid, ignorant, completely self destructive fibs and smears being put out about the proposed new Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS 2014) by a tiny number of extremists.  Who obviously do not give a damn about the pensions of their members.

  

I can just about accept that there are some UNISON activists who genuinely think we could have delivered loads and loads of strike action that would somehow have improved the bargaining position to get a better deal. I think they are wrong but what we find now is that there are those who seemingly want their members to retire in abject poverty, because that will somehow, further the revolutionary cause? Since they are sending out complete and utter fibs and smears about the new proposals.

What will be their position if the scheme is accepted? When UNISON will be running one of its biggest ever campaigns to encourage members to join the schemes during auto-enrolling? When all members will be by law compulsory placed in a pension scheme? How can they persuade their members to join what will be by any objective intelligent standard, a bloody good scheme, when they have completely rubbished it to them?

I can understand a reasoned debate on the pros and cons of the new scheme but we find extremist branch secretaries, who are personally fully protected themselves, from any of the proposed changes trying to persuade their members that the new guaranteed defined benefit scheme is completely "evil".  By doing so they are doing their very best to destroy a decent pension scheme.

This is shameful. Just because the extremists cannot go on strike, after strike, after strike; they are throwing all their toys out of the pram. While I would hope nobody will pay any attention to such stupidly I have no doubt that some members will and they will leave or not join the pension scheme and then have to endure their old age to die in miserable poverty.  

Who do Trade Unions Represent?

If unions are to progress they must always reflect and represent their members, not extremist groups or factions. I think that there is a problem in some (not by any means all) trade union branches which needs to be addressed. I haven't got the answer and I'll be interested to hear any suggestions.

I think this example will illustrate what the problem is. There is an inner London trade union branch that I am aware of, who has about 4000 members who all work in a tightly defined geographical area. It is a wealthy branch with hundreds of thousands of pounds of assets and directly employed local administration staff.

However, at the branch committee last week, which is supposed to represent members and run the branch, out of 15 possible committee members the meeting started with just 6 present. Of which 4 were active members of the Socialist Workers Party/Respect, one a lifelong member of the former CPGB and the other a member of the Labour Party. A number of recent meetings had been inquorate

How can anyone in their wildest dreams think that this political make up actually reflects the membership of the branch?

No wonder that this committee continually passes SWP/Respect motions that hardly any of the branch would support and it also endorses (mostly) SWP/Respect candidates in union regional and national elections.

I understand that in this branch there are only 10 (at most) members who belong to SWP/Respect while there are over a 1000 Labour Party affiliate levy payers.

I know that some people may respond to this situation by saying its the membership's "fault" for not standing for election and not turning up at meetings. However, what if these meetings are so long, boring and irrelevant to main stream trade unionists, that they just cannot see why they should give up their lunch break to be lectured on the evils of the capitalist world.

For instance at this committee meeting there was no less than six motions to be "debated", some good ones but most regurgitated SWP/Respect propaganda (the Labour government are all war criminals etc etc).

I think that the answer to this problem is to empower and democratise the membership. That is the easy thing to say, the hard bit is how?