Health & Safety protest – Monday 21 May Bethnal Green

(UNISON branch press release) “Tomorrow morning Tower Hamlets staff will be protesting at the lack of a screened reception at the new council Homeless Unit (sorry this is late - see my previous post on this issue)

“Whilst they welcome the bright and friendly reception area in a more accessible location for local people, they are concerned about the lack of safety screens. An independent Health and Safety report confirmed the unions (UNISON and GMB) fears that the low unscreened reception disks represent a real safety risk.

A UNISON spokesperson said "We want to give the best service possible to Homeless People. Unfortunately over recent years the Council and government policy have seen Council homes sold off and inadequate building of social housing. Rules on providing homes for homeless have got tougher and tougher. Inevitably in a minority of cases the understandable frustrations of homeless people, sometimes facing desperate circumstances, are taken out on staff they see. There have been dangerous incidents in the past. We believe a screened environment provides safety for staff, and enables them to provide the best service possible for local people".

What this means in real money is that staff trying to give a good service in very difficult circumstance are going to be at much greater risk of serious assault (or worse). Screens have been removed and there is no adequate protection for staff from being assaulted by clients. If management do not provide a safe working environment there will be a ballot for strike action. We have got no choice.

Picture above is of HPU safety reps Mohammed Yunis (GMB), Agnes Rogers (UNISON) and Kieran Floyd (UNISON) with management during the inspection last Wednesday.

I'll post what happened tomorrow.

“Building Stronger Unions - organising in the context of global capital”

On Thursday I spent an interesting few hours at the “Union Idea’s Network” (UIN) first ever conference, held in London Metropolitan University. About 100 people attended, seemed to be a mix of trade union representatives and academics. Quite a few young people and a very high proportion of women (unlike most trade union meetings I attend). The UIN is the “online website, supported by the TUC, bringing together trade unionists and academics to exchange ideas and information to stimulate debate and support action” (TUC).

I think UIN was only set up last year, the on-line forum doesn’t seem to be very active but it is early days. It has 960 registered users on its website. There is a fair amount of useful articles, research and information available as well. Mostly though written by academics for academics. There is a desperate need for new ideas and new ways of thinking in the Trade Union movement. We have got to evolve or die.

The conference was aptly called “Building Stronger Unions - organising in the context of global capital”. TUC Deputy General Secretary Frances O'Grady was the keynote speaker. Below are some extracts from her speech that I found particularly important to think about.

'None of us should underestimate just how dramatically globalisation is reshaping capitalism, nor the profound implications this must have for how unions must organise” …. “growing popularity of new forms of pirate capital exempt from rules of the game, including private equity, hedge funds and the appropriately named vulture funds”…. “Now - more than ever - we need to think globally and act globally” …'Perhaps the only way unions can stand up to the multinationals is by taking them on at their own game”….'Unions also need to reach out to all workers. Moving beyond traditional union strongholds, to create new union bases for the future” Finally
'But though global economic change represents a huge challenge for us, it also signals a genuine opportunity. We may not be able to stop globalisation, but we can work to shape it to progressive ends both here in the UK and internationally, articulating a compelling alternative vision of the global economy rooted in workers' real concerns. One based around decent work, opportunity for all, and the case for investment in housing, healthcare, childcare, transport and education. A vision of an economy that treats people as human beings, not just human resources.

I think she is convinced that if we properly organise we can restrain and even shape Globalisation.

Doug Miller from the ITGLWF and Paula Hamilton from the ITWF spoke about the complex supply trains of multinational companies. Doug mentioned that NIKE has at least 700 suppliers. He called for Multinational “buyers” to take affirmative action to promote trade unions in sub-contractors, not to just passively support “free association” of labour. They should insist in contracts there is a clause against victimisation of factory trade union organising committees. Paula spoke of the frustration many trade unions felt since the real “employer” of workers refused to talk to them directly and they had to deal with 3rd parties all the time. For example, Marks and Spencer’s design, price, specify materials, approve subcontractors, insist on certain suppliers etc for their clothing suppliers. They, not the actual owners of the clothing factories are the real employers of the factory workforce.

I was slightly disappointed that the potential importance of workers capital (trade union members pension funds and other collective investment. Often we are the owners of companies that exploit workers) wasn’t recognised. Trade unions need to do more work on this issue.

Professor Jeremy Waddington, Manchester University and Bronwyn McKenna, Director of Organising and Membership, UNISON talked about “Organising in Europe”. I was amazed on the low level of trade union membership in France. I think Jeremy said it was only 8%, with only about 4% in the private sector. Despite this, trade union demonstrations in Paris sometimes attract more marchers than the entire national membership. It there some sort of trade off – the lower the level of membership, the higher the level of mobilisation? Bronwyn talked about the future being strategic alliances between European trade unions not mergers. There are two many legal, organisational and political differences to overcome. Flexible alliances are needed.

Professor Jane Wills, Queen Mary, University of London and Martin Smith, National Organiser, GMB talked about Organising amongst low paid and subcontracted workers

Ken Livingstone and the GLA have introduced a London Living wage for his staff and contractors. This is now £7.20 per hour. There are estimated to be 400, 000 workers in London who earn less than that. Jane phrased the work of London Citizens. Martin took part in a survey of “sweat shops” in Tower Hamlets about 5 years ago. It discovered widespread exploitation of local garment workers. Many had thought that the sweat shops had been priced out by overseas competitors. For basic manufacturing this is true but for “finishing work” it is still often more effective to carry this out close to the final market. Especially if you exploit the workers. The GMB are thinking about carrying out another survey.

There was practically no discussion about the role of trade union “Political” power or campaigning. Strange in one way seen this was the day after McDonnell conceded defeat in the Labour leadership. In questions I did point out that despite the obvious problems and tensions, it was still in the interests of trade unions to support the Labour Party. I used the example of what would happen to the GLA “Living wage” if Ken is kicked out in the elections next year and the Tories take control? I think everyone present knew the answer. Surprisingly my point went down quite well.

In all a very good conference and I would recommend trade unionists have a look at the UIN website and consider attending any future events.

Leadership Elections: Treachery, Forgery or Hogwash ?

Did someone forge Marsha Singh signature on a nomination paper for John McDonnell? Why are some of JM supporters waging vicious and very personal “Kamikaze" attacks against Jon Cruddas? Rumour mill is going into overdrive, I have been doing some digging but as a Westminster village outsider, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of such reports. But they do reflect what many people appear to believe.

Marsha Singh is reported in the Guardian and the Telegraph & Argus (Pinkie and Perky) to claim that he only signed a nomination paper for Michael Meacher and that the nomination paper that was sent in apparently from him for McDonnell was forged. He clearly denies ever signing for McDonnell. Many Meacher MP supporters (I use the term “many” in the strictest literal sense, as more than 3 or even how many can you fit into a telephone booth sense… ) now claims that they were so angry at this “forgery” that this is the reason why they refused to back McDonnell. Hmmm.

Grimupnorth (my best ever mate comrade) claims (without linking the source?) that Alan Simpson MP and Mike Wood MP, state that it was "agreed" to transfer the “vote”? Not sure how this could happen unless this is an admission that they did forge his signature (at best thinking they had his “permission”) or that Marsha Singh is lying and that he signed two sets of nominations – one for Meacher and one for McDonnell (and then one for Brown?).

Grayee best guessimate is that someone did forge his Marsha Singh signature thinking that this was a little “white lie” since he had offered his support to Meacher and Meacher had urged his supporters to support McDonnell.

The plot thickens about the abuse that poor old Jon Cruddas is getting from some far left sites (I can link if you want). The unspoken reason is apparently this – Jon “promised” to nominate McDonnell for leader (if true a “coup”) if McDonnell supporters voted for him as deputy leader. A number (refer to definition of “many” above) of McDonnell supporters did nominate Jon.

The accusation is that Jon deliberately broke this deal and once he got the votes for deputy leader he then voted for Brown.

Grayee best guessiestimate is that Jon did wait a little while to nominate Brown for Leader. However, I cannot believe that someone with his political talents would ever agree to support McDonnell in return for their votes. Maybe there was a cock-up or maybe there was wishful thinking? Maybe this is just bitter recriminations against a “Left” candidate who was actually nominated?

Leadership Elections: The Story So Far?

Interesting results so far. It appears that McDonnell (I’m going to try to be as objective as possible – probably not successfully) is struggling to get 45 nominations. Which I find fascinating. If the “Hard-ish Left” cannot even get 12.5% of PLP nominations (and I think that each MP can actually nominate up to 3 candidates) then I think we may be seeing something momentous happening. This could be Blair’s lasting legacy to the Party?

Still, wait and see. Perhaps he is holding back support to build up media interest? (Surely no politician could be so naive?). I must admit that I don’t see many of the “usual suspects” missing from the list of his declared supporters who actually filled out and returned nomination forms.

Personally I would have loved there to have been a real contest for the Leadership. Peter Hain would have made a convincing opponent to Gordon Brown. A conviction Blairite could also have posed a real, meaningful challenge. McDonnell would be better than nothing. But, assuming he manages to get enough nominations to stand. It is clear (to me anyway) that there he has no widespread support and the “Hard Left” is completely marginalised in the Party. MP’s would not dare to ignore their CLP’s or trade union affiliates if they felt that there was any significant support for McDonnell.

So, in one way it would be pointless to have a “contest for the stake of a contest”, since the real test of Labour Party opinion will not happen because Brown is not facing a mainstream “left” or “right” challenge.

So Hazel, Peter, Harriet and Alan have enough nominations. I assume that Jon will get one more nomination? Maybe the debate about the future direction of the Party will take place in the deputy leadership election?

UNISON National Labour Link committee meet tomorrow to decide on who (or if) to recommend to members. UNISON has made it clear that no-one but this committee will make recommendations on behalf of “Labour Link”. There is no trade union “block” vote and UNISON levy payers will have a secret ballot to vote for candidates.

However, the unions will be influential. The sensible announcement that UNISON and GMB (together they have in membership about a third of the 3.3 million trade unionists who will have a vote!) are working together to “maximise” influence over the leadership elections also seems to me to be another indication that we might be on the road to merger.

Nominations update - 6pm Tuesday 15 May (From Labour Party website).

Candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party have received the following number of nominations as of 6pm on Tuesday 15 May.

Candidates for Leader of the Labour Party
Gordon Brown
282 nominations
John McDonnell
27 nominations

Candidates for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Hilary Benn
34 nominations
Hazel Blears
48 nominations
Jon Cruddas
44 nominations
Peter Hain
49 nominations
Harriet Harman
60 nominations
Alan Johnson
64 nominations

Leadership Election – Join the Labour Party: Get a Vote!

Quick post on the email no doubt many of us received today from Peter Watt, the Labour Party General Secretary, urging us to encourage Labour Party supporters to join the Party by June 1 and still get a vote for the Labour Party Leadership and Deputy Leadership.

By co-incidence, I spoke today to a GMB steward who lives in West Ham (my CLP). I asked him if he was a member of the Party. He said no, he gave some reasons why – including the cost! When I told him that trade union members can pay £1 per month he was astonished and said he would consider joining.

Now, if you can afford it, I would encourage everyone to pay the proper rate of £3 per month to join the Party (just over the cost of one pint of Stella in London – sorry I have been too long in the “Smoke” and I’m now a confirmed lager drinker). The literature does not make it particularly clear however, that the “reduced rate" for Labour Party membership also includes trade unionists as well as “unwaged”. There is a mass of trade union members who already pay a voluntary excess on their subs to the Party , who are probably not going to be very active in the Party, but are willing to join the Party (at £12 per year) to show support.

Interesting that the Party is doing this push. Some might think that there should have been a “cut off” point for eligibility to vote. Like there is for elections for prospective parliamentary candidates. Having a vote will be useful for CLP membership secretaries to use to chase "lapsed" members into paying their dues.

I understand from a few “Left” blogs that several thousand “Marxists” (inverted comma’s - sorry can’t find a source, but I have seen it I think on the socialist unity sites? - honest) deliberately joined the Labour Party solely to vote for Tony Benn to be deputy leader in 1981. Didn’t do him much good but I assume the Party enjoyed the subs.

Maybe it would be an idea to make it clear that a percentage of subs from new members are used to pay for a “thank you” party for Tony Blair? (Joke)

And while you are at it - join a trade union! If you work in public services then you must join UNISON (and make sure you tick the “Labour Link” aka “Applied Political Fund” levy box - you have until May 16 to get a levy vote). If you don’t work in Public services then check out the TUC "Work Smart" – Union finder site. Try to join a Labour Party affiliated site if at all possible. Check out TULO to find affiliated unions.

Finally, check out the stuff you can buy to mark the 2007 leadership election (see photos above)!

2nd East London meeting arranged for Deputy Leader Candidates

The 2nd East London event for members to meet the candidates will take place on 8pm Tuesday 29 May 2007. Alan Johnson, Hazel Blears and Peter Hain (tbc) will be attending. (1st meeting with Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman takes place on the 23 May).

This has been organised by West Ham Labour Party and Lyn Brown MP (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link).

Both events will be taking place at Sarah Bonnell School, Deanery Rd, Stratford, E15 4LP. Only 8 minutes walk from Stratford Bus and Train Station (free street car parking nearby)

Neighbouring Constituency Labour Party’s will be invited. Labour Party members and trade union levy paying affiliates only.

For further information contact John Whitworth (CLP Education Officer) jhnwhitworth@Yahoo.co.uk 020 8257 9587 or Alan Griffiths (CLP Secretary) alangriffiths_per@yahoo.co.uk 07773 884339

Striking over Safety

Strange, last month the “Daily Hate” launched a typically sensationalist attack upon the Health and Safety Executive “nanny state gone absolutely bonkers” et al. In this Jackanory they referred to a largely made up non-story about Tower Hamlets Council “banning staff from putting up Christmas decorations and lights in case they got hurt”.

In the real world, UNISON and GMB safety reps have actually been trying to persuade the Council not to remove safety screens, from the reception desks in the newly refurbished “Homeless Persons Unit” (HPU). The HPU assesses people to see if they are eligible to be rehoused by the council, if they are “homeless” and “vulnerable”. The vast majority of applicants are perfectly decent who are not any threat to staff. However, there is a small minority of homeless applicants (or their friends and family) who can be extremely violent and threatening. Management say that they want to improve the “customer environment” for users and that screens can even provoke violence. Everyone wants to work and provide quality services in clean, bright and modern offices but not at the expense of safety.

The HPU has always had security screens because of the potential risk. In the past screens were removed from local housing offices and “One Stop Shop’s”. However, they had to be reinstalled after a series of assaults and attacks on staff. One of our members on reception was punched in the head and knocked to the floor. She was severally injured and off sick for several months. In another incident a man with an axe jumped over a counter. Staff managed to retreat into a lockable room while he smashed up the office with his axe.

When I last posted on this issue staff had just voted to carry out an indicative strike ballot. In a meeting on Thursday, the results came back from UNISON members, 44 in favour of strike action and 5 against. So we will go for an official ballot. Members at the meeting also voted to support anyone who does not feel safe enough to work on an open reception and in favour of a protest (see picture) on Monday 21 May, when the new unit is due to open. Further details to follow.

On Wednesday 16 May UNISON has employed the respected health and safety specialist, Mick Holder, (member of IOSH) from the London Hazards Centre (LHC) to carry out an inspection of the new office. If management won’t pay any attention to what the people who carry out the job think then perhaps they might take notice of him and start thinking outside the box.

Another irony is that in recent years, the Council has built a number of “Idea Store’s” which manage Adult learning and Libraries services for the borough. These Stores have been very poplar. However, due to violent attacks and hooliganism, they have been forced to employ licensed doormen as security guards. I have spoken to these guards, many of whom are ex-military, who after their shift at an “idea store” go on to work at night clubs wearing body armour. So we have the ridiculous situation that licensed security guards are employed to protect library staff while the HPU will just have untrained “customer service assistants” (who have been told they are really “meeters and greeters”) to protect them.

Goodbye to all That? Tony Blair PM – A Personal Perspective

I know that you are not supposed to view politics from your own personal or family perspective, however, my politics are personal and based upon my own upbringing and life experiences. I suspect that in reality everyone shares this view.

So, what has been some of my personal and family perspectives on Tony Blair successes and failures during his time as Prime Minister? This is a short snap shot. Perhaps I could expand it to wider issues such as constitutional matters, gay rights, employment, mortgages, Northern Ireland, Trade union rights, Warwick or foreign policy? I’ll start with my Mum, brother-in-law and niece.

I think that the major achievement of Blair (and Brown) for my family has been pension credit. My mother is totally dependant upon her state pension. She (like most people) never had a chance to join a company pension scheme. The massive increase in her pension under Labour has made a huge difference to her life. Pounds in pockets. Easy to mock this if you already have them.

She lives in a very nice EPD (Elderly Persons Dwelling – which ironically used to be her primary school when she was little). She is the tenant of a Housing Association which was newly built about 7 years ago. A Blair government may have provided the money to build her flat, but she would rather have rented from the Council. She does not think that she has a personal “relationship” with her landlord in the same way her mother had with the Council. Blair has refused to allow Councils to build new properties and effectively tried to force them to transfer their stock to Housing associations.

My elder sister is married to a self-employed “lagger”. He drives a “white (-ish) van” very carefully. He provides and fits (usually by himself) insulation to commercial central heating and hot water systems. Most of his work is in the public sector as a sub-contractor to refurbishment or new build fire stations, hospitals, schools etc. He works bloody hard. It is a often, dirty physical work with no long term security. He refuses to declare who he votes for (I can guess). However, he accepts that under Blair he has never had so much work, due to massive investment in public services. Even though he also moans that he now has to pay far more in income tax. He is worried about his pension and what would happen to him if he was to fall sick or have an accident.

One of my nieces is now 21 and works as a shop assistant. She lives in an area where wages are traditionally very low. Blair may have done little to change the structural economic problems in that region; however, what he and his government have done is to introduce the national minimum wage (and 20 days’ annual holidays). Her money and working conditions may still be poor; however, the minimum wages has made a huge difference to her life. Pounds in pockets. She may have no pension (or sick company pay) at the moment, but the proposed Pension Personal accounts should help her start protecting her future.
Shall I go on?

“Protecting Future Pensions”: Conference for Trade Union Pension Trustees/Reps

The annual TUC “Trustee Network” Conference takes place on Friday 22 June 2007 at the Cass Business School, London, EC1Y. Keynote speakers are James Purnell MP, Minister of State for Pensions Reform (who took my photo with Tom and Nick Cohen last month), Paul Myners, Chairman, Guardian PLC and Chair, Low Pay Commission (my pension fund sacked him and his company, Gartmore, as its fund manager in 1994 – something he describes as the “worse day in his life” – a Joke BTW) and Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary (photo with UNISON London region last week).

Seriously, this is the only Trade Union national meeting of member nominated trustees/representatives on pension schemes. Ordinary workers in this country actually own huge chunks of British and international capital via our pension schemes, life insurance policies and other collective investments (such as PEP’s, unit trusts, investment trusts). However, often we have little or even no influence over how this money is governed. Pensions are just deferred wages. We should be exercising our rights of ownership (as well as taking responsibility for what is done in our name).

The pressure group “Fair Pensions” describes how some of our money “is invested in companies that are attacking employees’ rights and fighting attempts to unionise. This can include the use of militias against trade unionists in South America to “Union-busting” in the UK. We need to use our investments to change some companies’ behaviour. Pension funds own almost a fifth of the stock market, but the vast majority of funds - including some that offer “ethical” options – make no effort to challenge this behaviour.

Responsibly-invested pension funds are already putting Wal-Mart under heavy pressure over its labour practices in the United States. In the UK, pension funds have successfully lobbied drug manufacturers to lower the cost of HIV treatments for southern Africa and persuaded companies to start tackling climate change.

Responsible investment is about using shareholder power to improve company behaviour, rather than avoiding certain industries, so it does not lower returns, and can improve financial performance by identifying the potential cost of corporate strategies that ignore legal, reputational and other risks”.

If you want an agenda and booking form contact Jayne Cranefield on 020 7467 1225 jcranefield@tuc.org.uk (normally a bit pricy – make sure that your pension fund or union pays). If you have a “funded” pension scheme (has actually investments rather than “pay as you go” UNISON and the TUC are running courses on pensions), check to see if you could be a member nominated trustee/representative. If you are already a trustee join the network

UPDATE: Download entry form from TUC

Strangers into Citizens

Strangers into Citizens is the latest campaign by the London Citizens (LC) which is an alliance of community and faith groups in London. The aim is to find a “Pathway into citizenship for long-term migrants who have made new lives in the UK”. To-day was a national day of action. There was a mass at Westminster Cathedral led by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor (head of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain). Followed by a “Walk” (March) from the Cathedral to Trafalgar Square. At Trafalgar Square there was a rally.

Dave Prentis, the UNISON General Secretary helped lead the march and was a speaker at the rally. This campaign is obviously a key trade union issue. Public services in Britain depend upon migrants. Unscrupulous companies employ migrants whose status may be irregular and then take advantage of this to exploit them by paying poverty wages or providing shoddy working conditions. If the migrants complain then the employers simply threaten to report them to the authorities. Dave mentioned the plight of “legal” Philippine nurses in British care homes who had their passports confiscated by their employers, who were not paid what they had been promised and were treated appallingly.

The new Greater London UNISON banner was there together with banners from Tower Hamlets and School of Oriental Studies (SOAS). There was a mass of individual UNISON members waving flags and placards.

I had never been inside the Cathedral before and apart from weddings (and funerals) I had never been to a formal Catholic service. I was christened as a baby at the local Church of Wales (protestant) which is pretty much my entire experience of organised religion. The Cathedral was packed, standing room only. London Citizens certainly know how to attract people to attend their campaigns. I enjoyed the music and the spectacle of the service.

The march and rally was also well attended and colourful. Despite the rain (The LC marches don’t have a lot of luck with the weather – discuss). The whole of Whitehall was full. I am not sure how many took part (guess several thousand) but it is far more than the May Day March last week. I have attended other LC events such as the call for a “Living Wage”. But this was the biggest and most well attended.

I think it is fair to say that there is a degree of reserve by many on the “Left” about London Citizens. Obviously the role of the faith groups in secular politics can be controversial (it came up yesterday at the mosque). Sometimes London Citizens has been criticised over their methods (too "confrontational" and even for being "opportunistic"). However, they can mobilise and organise large numbers of people to turn out and successfully campaign on basic Labour movement issues that should unite us all. The trade unions (and the Labour Party) need to work out how to respond to this.