UNISON NEC Election Results: London Victory for Centre Left, National Union Safe.

Congratulations to London lollypop lady, Louise Couling, who was re-elected, new blood Kim Silver, elected for the first time and elected unopposed, Irene Stacey. Well done all of them.

Louise and Kim beat both female candidates from the SWP controlled “United Left” faction. A resounding victory!!

Sadly, top health rep Conroy Lawrence was defeated by the narrowest of margins in the male seat (less than 650 votes) but this is a great result for a first time candidate!! Formal and very sincere congratulations to United Left Jon Rogers.

Overall, despite a few casualties and losing some good people, nationally we had victory across the board. Most importantly, the union is safe; the NEC is still in the hands of ordinary members who want the best for UNISON and who will pursue real trade union policies rather than calling for permanent revolution and other such nonsense.

Navigating the Compass conference

Sorry, I can’t resist a pun, however, I was in fact recommended to become a “navigator” by one of the workshop speakers, so perhaps it is actually quite apt. The 4th annual conference of “Compass” took place yesterday at Central Hall, Westminster. The web site claims “Compass is the democratic left pressure group, whose goal is to debate and develop the ideas for a more equal and democratic world, then campaign and organise to help ensure they become reality”.

The journey to Westminster was a bit confusing. The district and circle lines where closed due to engineer works (which caused the conference to start very late). A practice of the “Trooping of the Colour” was also taking place close by at Horseguards. The conference went on all day. I will break this up into 2 posts, morning speeches and them post something later on work shops and closing session.

Neal Lawson, chair of Compass, was the first keynote speaker. I think he was trying to attack the current labour government while at the same time saying he was giving Brown the benefit of the doubt. He was “optimistic” over Brown and wanted to move beyond the “politics of betrayal”. However, the left must offer Brown support when he gets things “right” and constructive but friendly criticism when he gets things wrong. I bet Brown can’t wait for the constructive stuff. He ended by reminding people that it was Margaret Thatcher (of all people) who said “socialism is never defeated”.

Dave Prentis, the general secretary of UNISON (who had sponsored the conference) spoke next and gave a well received speech. He spoke about a new political landscape that is taking place “another world is possible”. A “new course for our country”. “Gordon says he is listening, our job is to make sure he is”.

Then Deputy Leader of the TUC Frances O’Grady, who was introduced by the great “hope” of the trade union movement! More good stuff on managing globalisation (see previous posts).

An extra speaker was Mustafa Barghouti, Palestine information minister (a former Presidential candidate and not Hamas – seen as a “moderate”) who gave a tub thumping speech on Palestine. While it went down well with the audience, I don’t think simply blaming Israel for all the ills in the region is going to change things. In fact I think that such rhetoric lets Israel off the hock, since most people would accept that in this complex conflict there is more than one party to blame (including the British) and will dismiss his views as mere propaganda. Which just plays into Israeli’s hands and enable them to successfully paint all their opponents as extremists and terrorists who they can’t do business with? I think that Mustafa knows this.

Final speaker was Ken Livingston. Another Bravo performance. Part “cheeky chappie” part Left intellectual and free thinker. He admitted that in the past the Left has been wrong about how to respond to globalisation. Giving subsidies to London manufacturing industries had completely failed to do anything to protect them. Instead he has now gone on the offensive for social progress by acting globally. London was part of an international consortium made up of the 40 biggest cities in the world. Which had combined to use their purchasing power to arrange multi-billion loans to retro fit for energy efficient, purposes every public building in London? Nothing to do with central government. Ken said “this is globalisation” not just leaders going to international conferences held in nice hotels. He finished by talking about local income taxes which if he could set at 2% in London would solve practically all its social problems. He recognised that you need to set taxes at a point which is a bit painful but not so painful that they (City financial services) would “bugger off”.

Picture of Tower Hamlets Labour Party activists Cllr Anwara Ali (and local GP), Cllr Bill Turner (UNISON member) and Law centre worker Amina Ali (who has been short listed as a PPC in Bristol)

I'll post the report on the workshops and closing sessions later

A Warm East End Welcome for Alan Johnson

What could be more “East End” and welcoming than a curry in a restaurant off Brick Lane. Local Labour Party and trade union activists in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney have organised a reception for Alan at the "Sonargaon Restaurant", 32-38 Osborn Road, E1 (leading into Brick Lane) nearest tube Aldgate East (5 minutes) 7-8pm Wednesday 13 June 2007.

Alan will give a short presentation at 7pm, and then he wants to talk to trade unionists and Labour Party members about his campaign and his vision for the future. Finish about 8pm. Food and soft drinks. Sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link.

Labour Party members and affiliated trade Union levy payers only.

TUC Pensions Champions launch

Last night I went to the launch of the TUC online network of “Pension Champions” at Congress House. The aim is to train and support volunteers to deliver advice and information on pensions to their workplace colleagues. They will be supported by a new website and on-line “pension doctor”. This will help build up someone’s pensions profile and assit them to decide what they need to do to increase their pensions. This is potentially exciting stuff and even “cutting edge” (in trade union terms). Minister of State for Pensions, James Parnell, (Alan Johnson Supporter!) and Natascha Engel MP (not yet a supporter of Alan but gave an excellent speech) congratulated the TUC on this initiative.

On the way in I had a chat with trade union demonstrators handing out leaflets on behalf of members of failed pensions schemes. Due to their campaigning pressure they now have got up to 80% of their pensions restored, but of course, they want what they were promised. James said that he was trying to see what could be done. I think one of the TUC aims is to get members involved and aware of their schemes to prevent future mismanagement. The real villains of course are the Tories for failing to properly regulate and protect people from rogue companies. Lets not also forget the financial consultants who creamed off massive fees from robber pension funds for decades in return for supporting their under funding and reckless investment policies.

UNISON is pursuing a complimentary programme through its Capital Stewardship forum. However, since we have funded pension schemes (such as the local government pension scheme) the forum is more concerned with ownership and governance issues (see The New Capitalists).

I appreciate that some may people may be surprised that the Pension Champion training is currently open to non trade union members. However, we have got to think out of the box. Pensions are a potential recruitment and organising opportunity. Especially with the introduction of Personal Pension Accounts. Which will be compulsory on all companies including small businesses (with the inevitable individual “opt out”)? Remember my report on the SERTUC conference on Saturday which reported that only 35% of British workers were subject to collective agreements? Think about it.

(Picture Left of UNISON “Pension Champion” Michael Gribben from London Ambulance Service, who was allowed to “stand down” for an hour to attend this launch, with James and Glyn Jenkins, UNISON National Pensions officer; Natascha Engel and Brendan Barber at back)

Alex Hilton at Congress House Hustings

Wandering around after the event I saw someone talking to UNISON Labour Link committee member, Alan Griffiths (Local Government) whose name badge was vaguely familiarly. I suddenly realised it was Alex Hilton (left), of the Labour party supporters blog Labourhome fame. I tried to have a go at him for censoring one of my posts on this site for the use of the term “McNoHoper” but he wasn’t having any of it. He did say first that it was strange to meet somebody for the first time in person when you had previously only come across them on the Internet. Pictured with UNISON Labour Link committee member Ian Horrigan (Health).

Trade Union Hustings in Congress House

Post on the Trade Unions for Labour (TULO) Hustings held last night in the TUC Headquarters in Congress House last month. Picture is of UNISON Labour Link member Rachel Voller (local Nurse) and Alan Johnson. The main hall was packed. Extra chairs had to be bought in. Brown comes in, lots of clapping, he “works” the front row very well shaking hands and looking very relaxed and confident. He then knocks a microphone off the stage. Recovers well, and starts talking to the audience. A few bits and pieces about his performance.

He talked about “social justice” and “progressive politics”; he mentioned how as a young man the NHS had prevented him from going totally blind. How he was only able to go to university thanks to the Labour Party. The 2.5 million jobs created by Labour during the last 10 years. He thanked the trade union movement for creating the Labour Party 100 years ago, for the NHS, for the minimum wage. He kept referring to the “Labour Movement”.

Gordon left and the 6 candidates then came in, the meeting was chaired by the editor of the New Statesman (John Kampfner?). It was much more formal and tense than the hustings we had in West Ham. Each candidate had only 2 minutes for a speech.

Hilary Benn gave a good speech. He kept reminding me of his Dad, who by co-incidence I had seen in the same hall, same spot, giving a speech on Saturday. He (HB) has an effective “tell it as it is” style.

Hazel gave her usual combative “campaigner-in-chief” speech; attacking Cameron for saying he “understands” what it is like for couples to pay a mortgage when he actually lives in a £1.25million house which was bought for cash.

Alan (I declare an interest) talked about how he was inspired by the trade union movement, but not usually at branch meetings (laughter). He rightly (and bravely) reminded the audience that the movement had made mistake in the past such as opposition to the minimum wage. They repeatedly rejected NUPE (now UNISON) motions at TUC for such a policy. The argument that “rights at work came with your union card” often failed the low paid and the vulnerable at work. Alan also called for a change in the “cultural of betrayal”. Trade union leaders who publicly attack the Labour Party all the time then suddenly 6 weeks before an general election (when realise what would happen if the Tories get in) call for their members to vote Labour, must realise that this damages not only the Party but also the union. He finished by saying Cameron is not the new Blair but the new Kinnock.

Peter concentrated on his anti-racist work and the success in Northern Ireland. He gave a powerful attack on excessive city bonuses.

Jon was interesting. He appeared to be the most intense. The Party needs to change. Lost 200,000 members in 10 years. Need to link the Party with the Government. Need to change policy, improve trade union rights, protect employees, build homes and apologise (but not pull out immediately) for Iraq. Funny enough his body language reminded me of Brown. Waving his finger to make a point and keeping the other arm tightly by his side.

Harriet wanted a powerful and democratic Party. Referred to her trade union credentials and her track record of building her local party to 700 members (not bad).

In the Q&A: Jon was "on the attack" over the “failure” of the government to support the private members bill on employment rights for agency workers. Alan supported the right of 2 or 3 star Councils to build homes (all candidates supported the 4th option!). Alan pointed out that the Councils must not repeat the mistakes of the past. He lived with 3 of kids on a “soulless council estate in south London”. Hilary described the housing shortage and affordability as a “ticking time bomb”. Harriet described the decision to go to war over Iraq as a mistake, abet one made in good faith. Peter said that we need to reconcile the British people over Iraq. Hilary said he didn’t regret the decision, and that we had to support a fragile democracy (to applause).

I still think that Alan Johnson should be deputy leader. He will complement Brown as well as act as a brake, if necessary. Which I hope will be good for the Party as well as the country. He is clearly someone who will speak his mind. His leaflet describes him as “Old” and “New Labour”. However, with his trade union and Labour Party background he could also be someone who could help modernise the wider Labour movement. This, if we were all honest, needs to be done.

Why UNISON backs Brown and Johnson

UNISON website explains how and why the elected UNISON Labour Link national representatives voted to support Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson

"UNISON is recommending that members back Alan Johnson for deputy leader of the Labour party.The education secretary got the nod from UNISON’s political committee at a meeting yesterday, which also brought a unanimous vote to throw the union’s weight behind Gordon Brown as party leader.“We need an election-winning team to face down the Conservatives,” said Labour Link chair Steve Warwick. “Despite policy differences, Gordon can win an election for Labour.”

Alan Johnson’s strong trade union links and “good ministerial record” in areas such as public sector pensions and on education support staff won him the committee’s vote.“He’s someone we can do business with,” said Steve, adding:“We will continue to use the hustings to argue our case for a change in policy direction.”

Around half a million UNISON members are eligible to vote in Labour’s forthcoming leadership elections.Ballot papers will be sent out from 6 June, which will include the candidates' booklet and supporting nominations. The committee is also recommending members give their second preference vote to Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary".

(grayee) I think the national Labour link committee realised that they had to pick the future prime minister and deputy leader who can defeat the Tories at the next election. Despite our differences in Labour movement family, we have to unite around winning candidates. There is simply no alternative for trade unionists to a Labour victory in the next general election.

Euston Manifesto Conference - Multiculturalism and Democracy

The second speaker in last week’s conference was Shalom Lapping (Kings College London). Shalom started off making a point that in this country, multiculturalism does not usually refer to Scots, Irish or the Welsh unlike in Canada, instead it’s used to refer to immigration and religion. There are two main attacks on multiculturalism. On the Right, it is seen as a failure of (Muslim) immigrants to integrate themselves into the host society which results in a breakdown of social cohesion. This results in separatism and ends in jihad. e.g. Melanie Phillips (Daily Hate). While on the left “communalism” politics breaks down social cohesion e.g. faith based schools. While some on the extreme left support it as some sort of “weapon in the anti-imperialistic struggle” to overcome western values.

Shalom believes that there has been confusion about cultural views and political values. Religion may cause cultural separation but if you look at examples across the world this doesn’t necessary mean violence or terrorism. For example, the Amish in USA are very radical cultural separatists yet are usually thought to be a benign and positive force. As are orthodox Jews etc. So any “problem” about “Islamism” is not necessary religious. Also, in the USA 53% of immigrants are from Latin America. None of the (many) debates about this immigration is concerned with political extremism. While in the UK many recent immigrants have been Muslims but in the future it is likely to be Catholic or Orthodox East Europeans. Radical “Islamism” in this country is also usually supported by “first generation” Muslims born in this country (July 7 murders) who are by definition not immigrants. Therefore it is not a problem of immigration as such. Radical Islamism is a political problem, it is an extremist totalitarian movement that not only does not want to live alongside other but wants to force itself on societies. That is the crucial difference.

Shalom says “Don’t confuse the arguments” Cultural difference is not a concession to immigrants it is a “fundamental part of democracy". Opposing the Muslim brotherhood is not racism or “Islamophobia”. We must respect and celebrate cultural differences. Islamic terrorists like all terrorists, take advantage of economic poverty and deprivation. To tackle terrorism you must pursue progressive democratic economic policies. Get rid of the poverty and you will get rid of the terrorists.

(grayee) I hope that I haven’t too much mangled Shalom’s arguments. I thought it was a magnificent defence of multiculturalism and democracy. Some of his arguments I felt went a bit too far such as supporting the Amish constitutional right to withdraw their kids from secondary school education. However, I am convinced that home grown terrorism in this country is rooted in political extremism and it is the extremism and its causes that must be tackled.

Next post will be on big bad Fred Halliday "Solidarities Simple and Complex"

SERTUC International Conference

On Saturday I went to South East Region TUC International conference, held at Congress House, London. Finally, in this age of “globalisation it appears that the trade union movement is starting to wake up about “international issues”. Not just NGO and single issue “pressure group” concerns, but the recognition that mainstream trade unions need to think and act outside narrow national boundaries. In many ways it complimented the "Union Ideas Network" meeting that I went to last month. Many of the same issues were discussed and debated. A running theme of the conference is that “Internationalism” is not just an excuse for a “jolly” abroad of trade union worthies, but should be a core activity.

Tony Benn kicked off the conference talking about “Global Solidarity and the Labour Movement”. I have a soft spot for Tony even thought I have nearly always disagreed with his politics. I enjoyed his reminiscing of being on a British troop ship sailing back to “blighty” after the war. He was at the time a RAF pilot and Labour Party parliamentary candidate in the 1945 elections. He remembered the debates on board on why was it possible to have full employment when the country was at war killing German’s but not in peacetime when they could be building hospitals and schools?

TUC deputy general secretary Frances O’Grady spoke about “Trade Union Internationalism”. Good stuff – internationalism is not just about merging unions, foreign travel, committees and rule books. It is about practical campaigning to organise and promote solidarity.

Professor Keith Ewing (Institute of Employment Rights) spoke about “Workers Rights in the International Context”. He started with the UK which he thought was 1. Becoming a country of minimum standards not decent standards. For example we have a minimum wage but not a living wage, a 48 hour maximum week but the right to work longer etc. 2. The focus on worker rights was changing from being protective or regulatory to now being subject to economic policy. There is an emphasis on increasing Labour supply to meet the demands of globalisation rather than promoting workers interests. 3. British trade union rights still do not meet international ILO standards e.g. ban on all forms of secondary strike action, unions find it difficult to legally expel BNP members etc.

He was also concerned that in the UK only 35 % of workers pay and conditions are protected by collective agreements. In 1979 it was 85%. . The lowest by far in the EU. Austria has 98%! One of the reasons for continued inequality in the UK is that vulnerable workers by definition cannot exercise many of their “legal” employment rights. This makes sense to me. He did however acknowledge the many positive developments such as the Warwick agreement and union learning reps.

Barry Camfield (T&G Unite) “Developing the International Workers Movement”. He started by quoting former T&G leader Jack Jones “you cannot be a trade unionist no matter how hard you try if you do not think as “we” rather than” I”. Barry urged unions to develop “new international strategies” to enable and empower” activists. We should have “action plans” in the same way as global business plan ahead. In 1922 the T&G Dockers declared “Capital is well organised, labour must do like wise”. So back to the future.

The only thing that I was surprised and disappointed about was that there was not mention at all about the role of “Workers Capital” (organising trade union representatives who sit as trustees on our pension funds who actually own relatively big chunks of many national and global companies).

I went to the morning “trade unions in Iraq” workshop. In the workshop the vocal audience were pretty much divided between “Labour Friends of Iraq” (Iraqi trade unionists want coalition troops to leave but not yet since they face slaughter) and “withdraw immediately” (you are causing more problems and deaths by coalition forces remaining). It was interesting to hear the chair, Sue Rogers, describe her surprise (as an anti-war protestor herself) at the support the war had and the continued presence from coalition troops had from Iraqi trade unionists she had met.

I attended the afternoon workshop “Global Bargaining with Global Corporations”. Dave Spooner (general secretary of the IFWEA) started off by pointing out that ethical agreements are all well and good, but do they result in any trade union members being recruited? Need to make sure that global agreements are actually agreed with all the unions involved not just the well organised ones in the “west”. He described the controversial “change to win” union organisers in the US who invest heavily to organise in key targets. Some international trade union associations as not being “fit for purpose”. They need to organise not service (we have heard this argument before), the under funding of global issues by nearly all trade unions.

Stuart Howard (assistant branch secretary of ITWF) gave a positive contribution on the possible strength international trade unions can have due to the modern day “time sensitive” supply lines e.g. the 2001 west coast US Dockers strike. Transport Unions have potentially massive industrial strength and bargaining power if they can organise in international transport “key hubs” (certain ports and airports).

John Fetherston, Unite (T&G) convenor, General Motors Ellesmere Port (a fairly major employer where I grew up) spoke about the difficulties and successes in General Motors European Works Councils. Far more success than failure I thought?

The closing plenary had Colombian trade unionist Asdrual Jimenez (who still had bullets in his back from an right wing assassination attempt), Cuban doctor Juan Carlos Dupuy Nunez, Baljeet Ghale NUT president, UNISON own Keith Sonnet and rousing speech by Rodney Bickerstaffe (Solidar and of course ex-UNISON: seen above with London UNISON deputy convernor Gloria Hanson). Keith stressed the importance of international solidarity while Rodney reminded everyone that this day was also the 139th anniversary of the first meeting of the Trade Union Congress in 1868.

Euston Manifesto Conference – Deficits of International Law

The first speaker at the conference was Norman Geras (University of Manchester). As mentioned in my previous post I was late and missed the beginning. His subject was not arguing over the pro’s and con’s of any particular military intervention (such as Iraq war), rather he was concerned with defects in international law which in his view, do not prevent genocide taking place. Current International law should not only be about punishing human rights violators (however imperfectly - the various current war crime tribunals), rather its should be about preventing or stopping the abuse taking place in the first place.

He argues there is an existing international duty to intervene in cases of “genocide”. He explained that under existing international law there is a big problem, since the international community requires the same standard of proof for intervention as for prosecution. What this means is that after a massacre, such as what happened in Rwanda, there will be physical proof, “beyond reasonable doubt”, that illegal “genocide” has taken place (loads and loads of dead bodies). However, the same standard of proof is needed to even contemplate action to prevent genocide which is actually taking place (Darfur?). What this means in practice is that under international law individual countries or the UN will not have clear legal authority to intervene until the bodies can be stacked up and counted. Which is of course nonsense? This will not usually happen since it is often impossible to gather evidnce to a standard “beyond reasonable doubt” in such circumstances. I think he suggested that intervention action should be allowable on a “balance of probability” basis. What we would want as internationalists is the ability to support intervention (preferably but not exclusively by non western powers organised by the UN) in developing countries to tackle genocide not just try to prosecute the ring leaders at a later date. Makes sense to me.

He recognised that there are problems. Should the “duty to intervene” be supported by sanctions against countries who refuse to play their part? However, he did end on a positive note. Despite the repeated failure of the international community to stop genocide since 1945 there had been genuine steps forward. Much more however needs to be done.