Showing posts with label harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harassment. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2022

Why we walked out of UNISON Community Conference? because a man dismissed for bullying & harassing 14 women was chairing it

 

A week ago there was a walkout of UNISON delegates and Service Group Executive members from our annual Community conference, which was being held in Glasgow. This has never happened before in Community.
This was an unplanned and spontaneous walk out since we had no idea until the last minute, that an imposter, pretending to be the lay President of UNISON, Paul Holmes, was going to chair our conference. Despite the fact he has recently been dismissed by his employer, following bullying and harassment allegations by 14 (yes 14) female UNISON members (and also by at least one male who was threatened with violence).
Not only has Paul Holmes been dismissed by his employer for bullying and harassing women but the current majority Group on the UNISON NEC have decided that they will "change" long established union rules to allow him to be our lay President, despite being unemployed, and therefore not eligible under rule to hold office.
The NEC has no right to change our rules to support men accused of such bullying and harassment. Only our annual National Delegate Conference can change such rules.
Paul Holmes has also recently lost an employment tribunal case for what is called "interim relief", which means the courts think it is likely he was fairly dismissed for abusing all these women.
We are a relatively small UNISON Service Group with only 60 delegates representing some 60,000 members. We also had visitors and members of the Service Group Executive.
I think around 25 members walked out including a former Female UNISON President, members of the Service Group Executive, delegates and visitors. Far more would have walked out if we had known in advance about this outrage.
Since then I have been contacted by UNISON members from all over the UK horrified that a man dismissed for abusing so many women can be allowed to hold office. They want him to be at least suspended until there is a proper investigation and process by UNISON into the allegations.

Otherwise it seems UNISON is saying to our 1 million plus female members, that no matter what you say, or how many say it, we won't believe you if you say it about one of our male NEC favourites.

Wednesday, March 09, 2022

In-UNISON: On International Women's Day - a former UNISON President gives her view on the current "President"


Hat tip in-UNISON blog yesterday by former President and current minority group NEC member, Maureen Le Marinel.

"On such a special day, it is always great to hear news that will make a difference to women in our union both members and staff. Many of you are following the events around the UNISON President and the faction Time for Real Change (TFRC) who are quick to put out news when it is in their or the Presidents favour.

Recently they made noise that UNISON was backing an application for ‘Interim Relief’ following the dismissal of the President by his employer for what we now know from those women and men involved was bullying and victimisation. The ‘Interim Relief’ application was on the grounds of Trade Union Victimisation because that's what the President and TFRC say is the reason for the dismissal!
Don't get me wrong if anyone is dismissed or being treated differently for performing their legitimate Trade Union duties then I would be there standing with them, but it is clear to me and many others that there is more going on in this case and ‘hiding’ behind an allegation of Trade Union Victimisation undervalues and demeans real cases and makes it harder for those who do face this treatment harder to take and be believed.
So yesterday at an online open to the public (if you had registered) Interim Relief Order Hearing, Solicitors acting on behalf of UNISON and representing the President and Solicitors acting on behalf of Kirklees Council put their cases to a Judge. The Judge would determine if when the case went to a full tribunal hearing there would be a significant possibility that the President and his solicitors could win a case for Trade Union Victimisation and if so one of the outcomes from yesterday would have been that Kirklees Council would have had to reinstate the President and his salary from the date of his dismissal in early February 2022.
Following both sides putting their case, the Judge REJECTED the claim for ‘Interim Relief’. Whilst this Judge did not give the Interim Relief Order, and many could see that as a clear indication that a case for Trade Union Victimisation could not be taken or won, the President still has the right to take a case to a full Employment Tribunal based on Unfair Dismissal (which has been widely reported in the media that it is what the next step will be) for Trade Union Victimisation.
The result yesterday must give those women and activists involved in this awful case within our union some strength that they did the right thing in taking their cases up with the employer and their union. That there are 1000’s in our union who believe them, stand with them and support them.
I love my union and the work that it does for women, but we need to be clear that sometimes we get it wrong for all the right reasons. Our union now needs to put an end to its internal process and follow the rule book in respect of a Rule I process, I can see no reason to delay now that the employers process is complete, they are and always have been separate processes.
I call on the UNISON NEC, of which I am a member, on this International Women's Day to act immediately and address these allegations by a Senior Lay activist in our union against the women of our union.

Monday, January 31, 2022

UNISON NEC: Damaging action behind TFRC rhetoric

 

Kate Ramsden is a respected member of the UNISON NEC and is known for being fair and independent minded.  This is what she thinks about the present NEC "leadership" who call themselves the "TFRC". 

"This is my piece on the UNISON Active blog about the current leadership of the NEC. Sometimes it’s just important to nail your colours to the mast and I am dismayed, angry and yes, really disappointed at what is going on and also at the disingenuous way it is being portrayed by TFRC.

I won’t lie - it has been a profoundly depressing experience attending meetings of the UNISON National Executive Council (NEC) this year.

Just when the pay, conditions and safety of women, many of them low paid, who make up almost 80% of our members, and who have been the heroes of Covid, should have been centre stage at NEC meetings, we have seen the unedifying spectacle of our Time for Real Change (TFRC) leadership instead spending hours debating internal wrangling.

Instead of promoting equality and diversity, TFRC has replaced most committee chairs with white men. Instead of debating and confronting the challenges of building confidence in the Local Government pay ballot, we have had to sit through engineered attacks on staff and the undermining of our own democratic processes for changing rules.

Despite TFRC’s fine words like “member led” and “union democracy”, I cannot for the life of me see where the interests of our members are being served. Their stated aims may seem to be something we can all sign up to, but what I am witnessing is the self-serving and damaging action behind that rhetoric. 

We all want better pay for our public service workers; and better funding for the NHS, local government and other public services. We all want a member led union, with greater lay democracy, an end to discrimination towards all equalities groups and to challenge the hostile environment for our migrant workers and refugees. We all want a more equal, socially just society. I and most of the activists I know have been working for that for most of our adult lives through our union and political activism.

However, look beyond the snappy catch phrases, and you realise that you don’t actually know what it is TFRC want to do in our union to achieve these ends for our members. That, to them, a “lay led” union doesn’t mean respecting the rules and policies that come from the National Delegate Conference, voted on by our lay membership. That it doesn’t mean finding out what our members want and finding ways to organise and engage with them in partnership with the elected General Secretary and the staff.

I have been an NEC member for almost five years. Like others of my Scotland NEC colleagues, I am unaligned with any faction. We have challenged the previous NEC leadership, and we have won, through argument, NEC agreement to look at some of the processes to make them more transparent. All the while I have had the interests of the members in Scotland at the forefront of my mind, especially women members and especially the low paid women who have been on the frontline of dealing with COVID.

When the leadership of the NEC changed, I hoped that we would see some changes for the better; that it might allow for a more open, transparent and inclusive leadership, where everyone’s contribution was valued and where we could all work together for the benefit of our members, finding ways to genuinely engage all our members with their union.

We had our new General Secretary, Christina McAnea, and despite the hype from some, I am clear that she is not a “continuity” leader. I had hoped that the NEC could work in genuine partnership with Christina and the staff, to address the criticisms of the past, a process which, in my view had already begun.

I was doomed to bitter disappointment. Things are going from bad to worse, with most of the same tactics so vehemently criticised by the TFRC in the past, now embraced by the new faction. We see the same building of power bases and cliques, excluding those with expertise who don’t align themselves with the TFRC faction.

We see attempts to undermine the very lay democracy that TFRC purports to espouse, with the passing of motions which two out of three legal opinions advise are in breach of UNISON rules; and worst of all, we see the bullying and harassment of staff. We have become like the very employers we most criticise, with constant threats to staff of being sued for non-compliance.

So although the rhetoric has been all about getting back to being a member led union, there is precious little evidence that the “members” referred to are more than the TFRC members on the NEC. There is precious little evidence that the TFRC faction is making any attempt to start where our members are and build from there. Our very poor turnout in the Local Government pay ballot would surely tell us that.

Those of us who have followed the outcome of ballots in the years since the latest (anti-) Trade Union Act know that smaller, targeted ballots have a much higher chance of meeting the 50% threshold for strike action. We know that we are still a long way from building members’ confidence for wide-scale action, particularly after two years of COVID. We know that members care about pay, that they are angry, but also that many are not in a place to vote for strikes or to trust in collective action. These are arguments still to be won by patient organising and engagement.

What we need is an organising agenda that is inclusive of the whole of the leadership including those with different affiliations or none and in partnership with the General Secretary and staff. There is such excellent work done by staff to further UNISON’s policies agreed at NDC and huge amounts of knowledge and expertise amongst both staff and lay members.

But that is not what is happening and it is a massive opportunity missed. What I see is the NEC lay leadership pushing its own agenda because it can. What I am witnessing is much worse than what went before, especially when you look at its treatment of the staff and its cavalier attitude to our union’s rule book.

I don’t know who said “Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Was it one of George Orwell’s pigs? Anyway it feels to me that this is what we are seeing here.

Instead of taking the opportunity to engage with the whole of the NEC to make the arguments for what they are trying to achieve and how it will benefit our members; instead of listening to dissenting voices and countering them with coherent arguments and genuine debate, TFRC has chosen to railroad through decisions by strength of numbers.

It’s both arrogant and divisive. It makes no effort to take the rest of us with them and it leaves us feeling powerless to represent our members’ interests. That has never happened before, and when it is the self-described “left” faction that is taking this approach, you have to ask whose interests they are serving.

Kate Ramsden


Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Bad Regulation = Bad Landlords

Hat tip "Nearly Legal" and check out this sobering report on the regulation of private sector renting by the National Audit Office.

There are 4.4 million privately rented "households" in England. Those who have bad experiences of such renting may "find it contributes to serious illness, financial issues or homelessness...The proportion of households in England living in privately rented accommodation has approximately doubled in the past 20 years, and the sector faces several challenges:

On average, private tenants spend more of their income on housing (32%), compared with those living in their own properties (18%) or social housing (27%).

The market is increasingly populated by low-income groups, benefit recipients and families, whose access to other housing options may be limited.

In around 29,000 instances in 2019-20, households were, or were at risk of being, made homeless following an eviction that was not their fault.

Many local authorities face funding pressures, which can constrain their ability to check properties proactively for non-compliance and therefore places greater reliance on tenants being aware of their rights and reporting problems".

As the NAO chart shows (p16) what this means is renters in the private sector can suffer harassment, live in dangerous properties, face financial exploitation, receive poor service, unaffordable rents and be completely insecure. Ironically to use a phrase loved by the Tories about Social Housing it is increasingly the "tenure of the last resort".

While there are many good landlords who offer and maintain quality homes for rent they are often under cut by bad landlords.

What we need is not only greater regulation but for this to result in a shift in the power relationship between landlords and tenants. To do that we also need effective and independent renter unions.