Green Mean Hypocrite Machine - Support Brighton Cityclean workers

hat tip SERTUC "Dear Colleague

I am writing to you as you recently signed our petition against pay cuts for staff employed at Brighton & Hove City Council. As you may be aware the union is currently balloting for industrial action, and the result of the ballot will be announced this Friday 7th June.

It has now come to our attention that the Council is planning 'contingency measures' to attempt to bust GMB members taking industrial action. You can find out more about this at  http://www.gmb-southern.org.uk/brighton-green-council-planning-strike-busting-measures/

We are absolutely appalled that a Green administration, which stood on a platform of fighting cuts and supporting workers rights could be taking such action. We are therefore asking for your help:

What can you do to help?

1. Please sign the petition again - All comments made on the petition are sent directly to Brighton & Hove Councillors. You can sign the petition at www.gmb-southern.org.uk/bhcc

2. If you live in Brighton, please print off the attached poster and place it in your window, to show your support to our members;

3. Please consider making a donation to the regional dispute fund. This fund is used to support members in dispute throughout the region, and it is likely that members in Brighton will need to call on it heavily when the dispute begins. You can make a donation via paypal at www.gmb-southern.org.uk/bhcc

Thank you again for your support

Rob Macey & GMB Cityclean workers

Mathematics by Hollie McNish

This is so very, very good. Please click, look, listen and maybe learn. 

Legal aid cuts - will you please help?

Great post by Ellie on Shelter Website about the slashing by this government of the legal aid budget.

"YouGov polling released today shows that over 50% of people feel that it should be possible to claim legal aid to pay for legal advice and representation if faced with eviction. At a time when so many people are struggling financially and are at risk of losing their home, Shelter is deeply concerned by the most recent legal aid consultation which will make this harder.

As described previously in this post, the government is proposing a worrying set of changes which will leave those facing immediate homelessness with limited access to support. Here is a typical scenario of someone who turns to Shelter for help:

• A family is faced with the horrifying prospect of homelessness. This can happen surprisingly quickly, as a small thing – like job loss – can rapidly create a spiral that leads to arrears and possession proceedings. They approach their local council to ask for help.
• Despite their legal obligation to find the family a place to stay, the local authority refuses. In desperate circumstances the family turns to Shelter for help, because they don’t know where they’ll be sleeping that night or the next.
• Shelter advisors ask council officers to reconsider but the local authority sticks to their guns, so Shelter issues a Judicial Review. At which point either the local authority concede and accommodate the family, or the Court issues an emergency injunction forcing them to do so. The family now have a roof over their heads and are safe for the night so the Judicial Review is withdrawn.

The government’s new proposals would remove the funding for a case like this; where permission to proceed with the Judicial Review (JR) is not granted by a judge. We describe the consequences of this in a letter to the Guardian. While it’s true that a significant number of JRs are either refused permission or withdrawn, this is because many cases, like the one outlined above, are settled in favour of the claimant before the case needs to go that far. The effect of these proposals is to remove funding from cases that are too strong, rather than too weak.

Under other aspects of the changes, many other people will not be eligible for legal aid at all, regardless of how desperate their situation. The proposals demand people prove they have lived in the UK for 12 months – even if they are British citizens, refugees, victims of trafficking or destitute children.

According to the Lord Chancellor, these reforms are driven by two key factors: reducing cost, and improving public confidence. In his Ministerial Foreword, the Lord Chancellor says expenditure on legal aid has “spiralled out of control”. In fact, expenditure has fallen by 25% since its historic peak a decade ago.

In addition, successive opinion polls, like the one today, have found widespread public support for legal aid.  Perhaps in recognition that it is a vital safety net, and that most of us are only a short step – loss of a job, a sudden serious illness, eviction from rented accommodation – from needing it ourselves. In May 2013, a Comres poll for the Bar Council found that 68% agreed that “at less than 0.5% of annual government spending, legal aid is a worthwhile investment in our basic freedoms” and only 11% disagreed.

Every night families across the UK turn to organisations for help, including around 15,000 who approach us a year under legal aid contracts. We are calling on the Minister to abandon these proposals so those families who find themselves homeless can find the defence they need to secure a safe place to stay that night.

The consultation closes today, see our consultation response for more info on the issue"

(sign the e-petition to Save UK Justice here)
.

Equal Marriage Victory in House of Lords

Excellent news! a wreaking amendment to oppose Equal Marriage was tonight soundly defeated in the House of Lords.

While I respect the principled opposition of those who genuinely believe that Equal (same sex) Marriage is under minding their faith in some way.

Much of the opposition is actually motivated by sheer homophobic hatred and bigotry - and should be shown up as such.

The Bill still has several stages to go in the House of Lords, it would appear that there is overwhelming support.

While I think that Equal marriage is really important and removes a stain on our society, I suspect in a few years people will think, what on earth was all the fuss and bother about? and why wasn't this introduced decades ago.

Cockney Heritage Fesitival 2013

Check out this Tower Hamlets Council local history site for further details!

To try and get justice at work you will need lots & lots of money (or join a trade union)

XpertHR confirm here that this Tory led government has published an implementation date of 29 July 2013 on fees for employment tribunals and appeals.

If this is agreed by Parliament (hopefully it won't) on this day you will be expected to pay :-

"For level 1 claims, the issue fee will be £160 and the hearing fee will be £230. For level 2 claims, the issue fee will be £250 and the hearing fee will be £950. Different fee levels will apply to claims involving multiple claimants.  For lodging an appeal with the EAT, the appellant will pay an issue fee of £400 and a hearing fee of £1,200."

I believe that most cases heard will be level 2. So if you are unfairly dismissed at work you will have to fork out £1200 for a hearing and another £1600 for any appeal.

This is despicable and will deny justice for millions and millions of working people. Bad bosses will treat people with contempt since they know they will not be able to afford these fees. Most trade unions I am aware of will pay these fees for cases that have a reasonable chance of success. Another reason for joining a union.

Better still join an union because you are far, far more likely to have a decent employer in the first place if you have an union in the workplace and avoid needing to go to law! 

The recent small but welcome increase in union membership may mean that workers are beginning to understand (again) that they cannot rely on their employer for justice at work, nor can they rely on the law.

The only people who can really protect them are their fellow workers and their trade union!

Nominate Jason Anderson as London rep on UNISON National Labour Link Committee

Can all UNISON Branches in London who support the forces of light and reason against the evil ones (aka miserablists) please consider nominating Jason.

You can download a nomination form from here. It needs to be signed by 2 branch officers who are Labour Link members (including the Link officer if you have one in post). Don't worry about the election statement or candidate form, Jason will send that direct to UNISON HQ.   His RMS number is 4565268. The form needs to be returned by Friday 14 June by email (elections@unison.co.uk) or post or fax.

"Dear Colleague,

I am writing to ask your branch to consider nominating me for the London seat on the National Labour Link Committee.

About me

My name is Jason Anderson and I work as a Frontline Ambulance Technician and have been a member of the London Ambulance Service’s ‘Hazardous Area Response Team’ for the last two years. This involves attending to casualties in many different environments’ i.e. Fire Incidents, Water, and Decontamination, Biological, Chemical, Nuclear and mass casualty.

I am now in my 13th year in the London Ambulance Service and have seen many changes to staff working conditions like the introduction of ‘Agenda For Change NHS’, and now the prospect of restructuring across the Service (mainly due to the financial cuts being forced on the NHS by the Conservative/Lib Dem Government). I am acutely aware of the role we as a union have in demonstrating the effects Con/Dem policies are having on our members and the services we deliver.

We have a key role to play in building opposition to the Government and enabling Labour to win the next election in 2015.

I am a committed trade unionist, first joining after leaving school and starting work on a ‘Maggie Thatcher’ YTS Course (which not surprisingly didn’t last!) and have held numerous UNISON roles including Station Representative, H&S Representative and Branch Labour Link Officer for the past two years.

I am a life long supporter of the Labour party and have been a party member for the past few years. I have recently moved home and my CLP has changed from Mitcham and Morden (where I have supported Siobhain Mc Dough MP with the ongoing campaign to keep the A/E and Maternity departments open at St Helier Hospital) to Epsom and Ewell where I am already getting involved in campaigning around the local Elections.

Labour in Government delivered real improvements for our members, but, Labour needs to change and do more to win the General Election in 2015. We need an alternative economic policy. I believe in supporting the Party, but also in campaigning for or against change where it impacts on our members.

If elected I will :-

• Represent the views of APF payers in the London Region. 
• I will work towards ensuring the voice of UNISON members is heard within the Labour party. We need to champion trade union issues and move our members concerns up the agenda, promoting a manifesto that includes; 
• Defend our NHS 
• Reinvestment & defending our public services 
• Defending pay and public sector pensions 
• Access to housing for public sector employees 
• Economic policies that promote growth and jobs 
• A Labour victory in 2015 must be a priority for us all. We must get rid of this Tory led Coalition Government determined to destroy our public services and welfare state before they do any more damage. 

I hope your branch will consider nominating me. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Regards
Jason Anderson"

West Ham Labour London Euro MEP hustings 2013

Picture is from the hustings that took place on Tuesday evening at the Vicarage Lane Community Centre in Newham. The event was organised by West Ham Labour Party (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link). Chaired by Charlene McLean (middle)

All Labour Party members have by now been sent by email how to ballot on line and I believe next week they will receive postal ballot papers to use if they prefer.

London UNISON Labour Link have endorsed our members Sanchia Alasia (first left) and Ivana Bartoletti (2nd left). So we recommend you vote for either - 1st or 2nd choice on ballot paper. Other candidates are Andrea Biondi, Seb Dance, Lucy Anderson and Kamaljett Jandu.

I was away and couldn't make the event which is a real shame. Hat tip picture Ali G.

NAPF Local Government Conference 2013

On 21st May I attend the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) Local Government Conference. The keynote speaker was the Minister for Local Authorities, Brandon Lewis MP.

Now I know many people think pensions is boring but there are 4.6 million people in the UK who are members of a Council pension scheme. Collectively they are all worth around £150 billion and if combined would be the 5th biggest fund in the world. 

The minister announced a "root & branch review" of Council pension schemes (LGPS) including possible merger of the current 99 separate funds. He said "things will change but nothing ruled in or out" at this stage.

In the Q&A I asked him what is the main driver for merger-  is it to save money or is it to save the economy through infrastructure investment?  He suggested that the LGPS is bigger than the Canadian public pensions schemes but does not have their scale and efficiencies (answer - main driver is to save money - but I am not convinced this is the reason)

Next we had "Implementing the LGPS 2014: from here to go-live".  First was Chris Megainey, a senior civil servant from the Communities and Local Government department (who was described as the"new Terry Crossley"). His big news was that the new governance arrangements for the LGPS would not be in place before 2015. Rodney Barton from West Yorks Pensions scheme spoke about the huge threat to schemes from the complex career average administration arrangements.

Brian Strutton from the GMB reported on the LGPS Workstream 2 "governance & cost structure" and the problems of trying to convince the HM Treasury that there is a difference between a funded and unfunded public sector pensions scheme (NB £150 billion of assets methinks!). There appears to be some sort of classic "fudge" agreed with different valuations being allowed.

My question to panel was while it is important to get the details right, LGPS 2014 and auto enrolment means there is a massive opportunity to increase membership into the scheme but this will need local and national campaigns. (answer from Chris that there is no national money available so will have to be local).

I then went to the "All Change: Employer security & the new LGPS" workshop. Schemes face grave problems if admitted body employers go bust without adequate security and also these employers face often massive termination debts when the last employee retires. I asked the question that to avoid these debts should employers apply to open schemes to new entrants? Especially since the LGPS 2014 has radically changed due to cost sharing? (answer from panel that some employers have indeed done this just to avoid existing debt. But this is a cynical response? Well, cynical or not it makes sense to me!)

Back to the main conference room for "The 2013 Valuation: Health Check Results" to hear Ronnie Robertson from Hymans Robertson. The 2013 valuation is likely to be the 3rd "bad" funding vaulation outcome in a row. Employers such as housing associations will find it "very scary".  He quotes Michael Johnson who describes underfunded pension schemes as being in a "death spiral".  The interest on deficits & less assets means the fund eats itself.  My question was is the real problem the way we measure liability? investments are up but liabilities are much, much higher. Gilt yields are at a 200 year low? Yet it drives the entire investment philosophy? (answer was yes but no but)

Next workshop was "Responsible Investment: what it means for the LGPS?" NAPF used this to launch a new report on RI here.  Dr. Craig Mackenzie from Scottish Widows pointed out how much things had changed since in past there use to be argument about whether RI was even legal for pensions to consider. My question is there hard data available that can show pension committees that RI not about hugging trees but delivers superior returns? (answer: Yes, lots of it)

The last business item of the day was to be a bun fight debate on LGPS merger. However it turned out to be a bit of a let down.  Edmund Truell from London Pension Fund Authority (for merger - and general world domination) and Nicola Mark from Norfolk Pension Fund (against merger) were too polite and reasonable for a great debate.

Edmund argued that in London alone they could save £120-200 million per year from merger and unless we do so we are essentially all doomed. Nicola counted that all new local government ministers firstly ask why can't we merge the LGPS? -  then they ask "how can we get our hands on this money". She pointed out that if there is a 1% change in the Norfolk £2.5 billion scheme investments there is a £25 million difference. If there is a 1% change interest rates its impact is £480 million

My question to both was if pension funds are supposed to act in the interests of beneficiaries and with LGPS 2014 there will be risk sharing with employees, what consultation have you done with beneficiaries on whether merger is a good thing or not? (from the rather wafflery answers clearly neither have done any such consultation. Which I knew already since I have members of my trade union branch in both schemes. So why do they think they can speak on their behalf?)

The guest speaker at the dinner event was former adviser to prime minister Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell. Who gave a typically entertaining and provocative speech. For once I did not ask any questions.

I missed the next day's session since I had to go to a Pension Trustee meeting.

Stratford and West Ham Spring Festival 2013

Collage from the recent Stratford and West Ham Spring Festival which was held inside the Stratford Shopping Centre. A wide range of stalls, competitions and exhibitions. From health MOTs, ball room dancing intro, Air Cadets, Girl guides, Owls, Russian folk songs, tea dances in the Town Hall, Talent competition, Face painting, massage, Poetry, Zumba, cake decorating (and much more).

A great event and many thanks to all the local volunteers, businesses and the Newham Council staff who participated in the event and with all the planning.