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

UNISON Special Local Government Conference 2015

I am not a member of the Local Government Service Group anymore (even though my pay and conditions like many UNISON Community members are still determined by the National Joint Council) so I was not there yesterday and don't know how accurate this UNISON Active post is but it has a ring of truth about it.

I may not agree with every comment it makes but would agree that it is far, far better than the self seeking, pompous and nonsensical accounts by the Evil Ones' - Goblin in Chief.

BTW - did the conference total cost the union £250,000 or £750,000?

Labour Link Forum: Less than 10 months to get rid of Cameron and Tories

This report was posted on UNISON Active.

UNISON Labour Link Forum took place this year in Bristol earlier this month. This is the national meeting of UNISON delegates from regions and Self Organised Groups who support our constitutional link with the Labour Party via the Labour Link (also known as the APF) political fund.

This is a motion based conference which had some great debates on policy. There was also workshops and a number of high profile speakers including Jon Cruddas MP, Head of Labour's policy review; Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Minister for London Sadiq Khan MP and our General Secretary, Dave Prentis. There was a UK Parliamentary panel of Labour MPs and a European Parliament panel of MEPS.

Jon Cruddas MP told us that Labour in power would stop the abuse of zero hour contracts and that of agency workers, increase the minimum wage and make greater use of a Living Wage. It would repeal the Lobby Act, have fair taxes and build new homes. Extend free child care, make private providers of public services liable to freedom of information obligations and use procurement to help decide wages. The recent announcements on Labour plans for Councils and regions is the biggest devolution of power in 100 years.

Our UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis, spoke that what we want is a Labour Party committed to tackle child and pensioner poverty. We want a Party committed to build an NHS that Nye Bevan would be proud of. We do not want Labour Councils just being vehicles for putting out contracts.
We need and now must get alternative policies not alternative spelling. We expect Labour to support us over Pay. Opposition means opposing. We want no weasel words. We want our demands to be heard. We want clear commitments. Cameron and Tories do not stand for our class. We must get rid of them. Our one objective is to kick the Tories out and get a Labour Government elected not just for 5 years but 15 years.

Sadiq Khan MP introduced himself as the son of a bus driver, whose sister is a teacher and brother works in the NHS. He salutes our public services. Public institutions hold our society together.
He attacked the new huge fees on Employment tribunal applications which is depriving rank and file workers of justice. He argued we must stand firm on further attacks on access to justice.

He praised Ed Miliband's plan to devolve power and money away from the centre and empower our great cities and councils. Sadiq promised not to sign any contracts for privatisation which are on his desk as Justice Minister in 2015 and his first task will be how to unpick existing contracts.

In the UK Parliamentary panel local Bristol MPs attacked the Executive Mayor model in Bristol as being undemocratic and unaccountable. It was hoped that after the recent announcement by Ed Miliband on decentralisation of power that the whole executive mayoral system will need to be looked at. In the European MEP debate there was a positive discussion on combating UKIP and stopping the race to the bottom in employment rights.

There is now less than 10 months to get rid of Cameron and his Tories. UNISON Labour Link must now do everything it can to elect a Labour Government in 2015 but also make sure that the Party has the progressive election winning policies that will help us to deliver the Labour vote.

This weekend it is the Labour Party’s national policy forum in Milton Keynes. UNISON is launching its manifesto for public services this week, ready to present to the Party. These are the type of policies that will not only protect public services but win elections.

John Gray

Trade union renewal and the role of ideology, organising and servicing.

UNISONActive had an interesting post recently "Ideology - an essential component of union growth strategies". It argued that having an organising agenda alone does not work and that unions ought to be more "political". Organising is defined as  "empowering workers at work and in their union".

The American trade union SEIU has a world wide reputation for organising yet this has not resulted in an increase in trade union membership.  Instead this post believes that "Our core message has to address social injustice and the failure of market economies".

I tend to agree but I don't necessarily see any conflict with an union pursuing political goals as well as an organising model except of course that unions don't have unlimited resources so some form of prioritisation has to take place. 

Yet the solution offered is to "empower workers with an anti-caplitalist ideology". Which unsurprisingly as a fully paid up mixed economy reformist I don't agree with. We need to control the excesses of capitalism by political regulation, progressive taxation, quality public services and strong free trade unions. 

"Ideology" has always been a problem for unions but it is good to debate this issue and hopefully come to a consensus on what we can agree upon for the here and now.

I also think we should also mention in any discussion on trade union renewal the much maligned "servicing" model of trade unionism. I am a huge fan of organising and empowering members and stewards but if members need help at work then they have the right to expect speedy, responsive and competent representation. The best person to represent members on personal or collective issues is a trained, confident local rep who has the support of the membership. But reps need the support of the union and where there is no such local rep the union needs to be there.

Finally, we also need to think that if the Anglo-American school of trade unionism is declining then should we not be looking at those countries in Northern Europe where they seem to be more successful than us with much higher density levels and better protections for workers? 

Miserablist loses the plot (while having a strop)

Check out this great article in UNISONactive about the hypocrisy of the miserablists, who are actively trying to destroy the new local government pension scheme. Putting aside for the moment that the new LGPS 2014 is a victory for the union (and our members - in particular low paid women workers), the chief miserablist is having one of his "know it all" strops and attacking anyone who dares to disagree with him. 

While at the same time ignoring basic principles of trade unionism by declaring UDI from collective decisions made at conference and by elected lay members.

"Bread and Roses" Strike Centennial

Hat-tip to UNISONActive for their post on the Centennial anniversary next year of the "Bread and Roses" Textile Factory Strike in the United States.  Check out this link for the AFL-CIO site and video. YouTube clip of the Boston Workmen's Circle A Besere Velt (A Better World) Yiddish Chorus.  Which is quite apt.  The lyrics and tune is quite unforgettable and even haunting.

TUC Congress 2011: UNISONActive take on TIGMOO

Naughty but nice.. Check out this UNISONActive post on Congress.  "All aboard the TUC Battlebus - Destination unknown". 

Torygraph and Tax Avoiders Alliance “twaddle” about unions

What a lot of old twaddle from the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders’ Alliance about “millions” being (so called) wasted on time off for trade union stewards and safety reps to represent their members.

So every time a rep goes to a meeting with a member or sits down with management to sort out local problems - this is somehow “fund (ing) the activities of the union barons”? How silly.

So what exactly are these “Big Society” Tories clones proposing should happen instead?

a. Workers facing discipline or sickness hearings should be banned from having trade union colleague representing them?
b. safety reps should not be allowed to carry out workplace inspections or investigate accidents ?
c. organisations should not consult elected staff representatives on pay, proposed redundancies or changes to terms and conditions?

This is all politically motivated stuff and nonsense and I suppose in one way we should expect such “tic for tat” attacks on the unions due to our support for Labour. Frankly, I would have thought that they could have come out with something just a little more intelligent to have a go at us.

If you are thinking about efficiency I would suggest the Tories and their allies look into the number of HR personnel in large organisations (and wages paid to the HR directors!) compared to the facility time offered to trade union reps?

The only really sensible quote in the Torygraph article is from UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis about the role of union reps "Far from causing industrial strife, paid facility time has contributed to the lowest levels of strikes on record. In short – trade union facility time makes good business sense."

The TUC blog “Stronger unions” reports on the Tax Avoiders that “The voice of employers is also absent from the report – quite odd given that I assume that the TPA would regard itself as a friend of employers. Is this because only last year the CBI joined with the TUC and BIS to publish a report – Reps in Action – on the role of union reps and stated that it;

“Believes that modern [union] representatives have a lot to give their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them”

The Ultra right wing “teenage scribblers” of the Torygraph and the Tax Avoiders' Alliance have (self evidently) no idea whatsoever of industrial relations in the real world.

UNISONactive and Socialist Unity have sensible posts on this as well. Caption from here

"Why I’m backing Dave Prentis"

Check out West Midlands NHS Nurse and UNISON NEC member, James Anthony, at his blog James NEC update.  In his post entitled "Who will put members first?" he goes through the arguments why he is supporting the re-election of Dave Prentis as our General Secretary.

I understand that UNISON National Young members have endorsed Dave, so have the Energy Service Group, West Midland Region, Wales, National Disabled members, Scotland, North West Region, Northern Ireland... and loads and loads of branches from all over the place.

Also my fellow UNISON Local government pension activist and top branch rep, Mark Rayner, has posted on UNISONactive about the “lies, damned lies and voodoo” being put about by supporters of ultra left extremist candidates who are putting out their usual sectarian poison (as instructed of course by their Central Committees:).

Finally - Picture credit thanks to Icepicker100.

LGPS Pension matters 2

More good stuff about the sustainability of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS and all well run Final Salary schemes) from various sources.

(Picture is of UNISON LGPS pension reps)

The current LGPS is not the cause of increases in Council Tax or cuts in local services. In fact money equivalent to less than 6% of Council Tax revenue goes towards the LGPS, about £70.50 a year for an average Council Tax paying household in England. The numbers being peddled by those opposed to quality pension provision in the UK are dangerously misleading for a debate that should be considered not a forum for shallow point scoring.

Of that contribution it is the funding owed for past service that is often the greater part. Past underfunding by employers has meant that insufficient funds have been put aside for future pensioners. However, as a funded scheme, unlike the others in the public sector, the LGPS has over £120bn in assets, a figure sufficient to pay benefits for more than 20 years without any additional contributions being made. In addition the LGPS receives £4-5bn more in income than it spends in benefits every year, ensuring its enduring viability.

Even in the current economic climate the LGPS received nearly £3bn in income from its investments in 2008-9. The scheme is a major shareholder in British businesses, property and regeneration. This is on top of the contribution it makes to the income of more than one million current pensioners many of whom would be entirely reliant on taxpayer financed state benefits if it wasn’t for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

The local government trade unions believe that the drive to the bottom approach to pension provision being led by the Conservative and Liberals will lead to millions more pensioners suffering and significantly increased pressure on public services.

Everyone should bear in mind that the scheme was reformed in 2008 with some benefit changes and increases for employees in their contributions with the Government and employers being party to the new scheme.”

Also UNISONactive quotes Labour Minister John Healey who said in May 2009 that a defined contribution scheme would result in the average pension for a local Government worker reducing from it’s current £4,000 to about £1,000. While this “Big improvement in values of funded pension schemes” BBC report was for some reason not on the front page of the Torygraph or Daily Hate.

Hat-tip thingy of course to Tom P at Labour & Capital who has recently pointed out (here) that the elephant in the room over final salary pensions is longevity. In the LGPS we have now agreed to talk with employers about fluctuations in the cost of future service.  The biggest challenge is making up for inadequate contributions made in the past by employers.  If the LGPS was replaced then past liabilities will still have to be paid for - So what is the problem?

I would also add that if we got rid of LGPS you would have to replace it with something else which would have to provide a pension and this could even cost more!

That poor governance practices in the LGPS by certain Councils who have run it as a private dining club has contributed massively to poorer investment returns which has dragged down its overall results.

It is madness that there are so many “tiny” LGPS funds who all tender for, appoint and then employ individual private fund managers and individual advisors. We should rationalise the LGPS into a much smaller number of large, well resourced funds who will employ in-house fund managers who would slash costs and improve performance. The most successful big LGPS funds already do this.

The Witch-Hunter General - Trot of the Rogers has recently pinched my long running argument that the LGPS could actually be extended to all employers and employees. Arguably you don’t need a change in the admission rules since membership could be allowed to any employer who provides services that a local authority “has or could provide”. Which I understand now is pretty much everything. The self-employed (White van person) who are most concerned about their lack of provision and the “trustworthiness” of ill-health and pensions on offer could even benefit the most?

The UNISON website here makes many of the same arguments as the GMB but its “myth busters” argument also adds that “Over 50% of the cost (of the LGPS) is met by employee contributions and investment returns”.

While UNISONactive have commented on the success of UNISON in forcing the government to stop councils using LGPS money to lend to themselves at super cheap rates. This alone cost the LGPS at least £131 million last year alone.

Rant over...for now. Watch this space.  Hat-tip Tom P

Update: been pulled about about unions "agreeing" to longlevity review.  There is an agreement for possible further discussions if it becomes an issue in the future.

Transformation leadership and Trade Unions

This is another plug - but this time for what is probably the most prolific and enthusiastic UK trade union web site UNISONactive for their post on Why Transformational Leadership matters in Trade Unions.

What does the passing of trade union leaders such as Jack Jones (see picture of the International Brigadier) mean?

While I may not totally agree with all the analysis and its conclusions this is really good stuff.

Just fancy – a proper argument put forward about the leadership of trade unions and real working class politics without any of the blinkered sectarian rubbish.

Whatever next!

Roger Mackenzie the blogging West Midlands UNISON regional secretary also likes this discussion.

Showing support on the Picket line in Leeds Bin dispute

Picture is of the UNISON International Seminar delegates visiting the UNISON/GMB Picket line early this morning outside Leeds City depot at Knowsthorpe Way (Rubbish Collection agency!). UNISON NEC member Linda Sweet is standing behind the main UNISON flag to my right.

Check out last night’s comments on the strike here by local MP Colin Burgon.

The picket was well organised, disciplined and in good spirits. Some 300 rubbish collection workers and street cleaners are on strike over proposed pay cuts of up to £6,000 per year. The strikers themselves are confident of victory and that they can stay out as long as is needed. Walking around Leeds city centre you can see rubbish piling up. The main streets are being partly cleared by strike breaking agency workers (I thought that this was illegal?) but the side streets are pretty rank.

Click on this report at UNISONActive about Thursday rally addressed by Paul Kenny the General Secretary of the GMB.

Picture by Delroy Bent - Lewisham Local Gov. International Officer.

UNISONActive: Time for Pension Funds to Control Executive Pay

“UNISONActive is produced by UNISON activists for UNISON activists. Bringing news, briefings and events from a progressive left perspective”.

A warm welcome to Blogland to the new site UNISON Active. It is bright, informative, sparky and well designed. This article on why it is about time that pension funds took action to control Executive Pay is just absolutely spot on.

As it says UNISON members via their pension and life assurance funds actually own big chunks of the Banks yet we supposedly allowed their managers to bankrupt themselves then we as tax payers had to bail them out. Now UNISON members are expected to take a drop in income in order to pay for all this???

We do need fundamental change to prevent this happening again. We cannot continue to allow control of our capital to be handed over to city fund managers who simply don’t give a damn over the long term performance of our money. They themselves are judged by short term investment performance every 3 months and sacked if they don’t perform. So it is not surprising that they appoint Bank Executives who promise fast returns in return for fat bucks. They are speculators not investors.

Paul Myners, the Minister for the City put it like this…."Disengaged investors lead to ownerless corporations and the risk of unaccountable executives and boards running amok."

Pension and life assurance policy holders are by definition in it for the long term. Despite my youthful good looks I have already 22 years of pension contributions and it will be another 19 years until I retire (hopefully 65-ish). Fingers (and toes) crossed I will then probably live another 20 years. There then of could also be a spouse pension.

So I’m interested in a 60 odd year relationship with my investments not just 3 months or 3 years. If my pension investments were properly aliened with my true interests then my fund managers would ensure the executives of companies they invest in on my behalf are rewarded on the basis of the long term added value and security they give to my fund.

BYW - I actually remember in the 1990's my fund sacked Paul (Now Lord) Myners who then worked for Gartmore as our senior fund manager due to short term "performance". The manager we appointed to replace them didn't do that much good and we have since sacked them as well.