London UNISON Regional Council: 31 October 2012

The meeting was not quorate but we heard our speakers. The first guest speaker was Nick Raynsford MP, Greenwich and Woolwich who spoke about proposed cuts and mergers to South London Healthcare.

The Tories are playing politics with local NHS services regardless of clinical merit. 

Head of UNISON local government Heather Wakefield spoke next on pay. We are opposing the 1% public sector pay limit, regional pay and attacks on facility time. We need to restore pay. Aim to have a Living Wage for everyone who works in public services. Outside London this is £7.20 per hour. Currently the lowest pay band in Local Government is £6.30 per hour. Which is barely over the minimum wage. Need to encourage our members to take up any benefits that they are entitled to claim.

There will in real terms have been a 15% pay cut in local authority pay by April 2013 due to the rising prices and the pay freeze. Heather went through the campaigning issues on pay, terms & conditions.

220,000 workers in Local Government and 50,000 in the National Health Service have so far lost their jobs. Members in work are obviously worried about their jobs. 

Then Roisin Wood from "Kick it Out" which use to be an anti racist but is now a "pro-equality" in all aspects of football campaigning group. There is only 7 of them and they are campaigners are not the regulator, the football players union nor the employer. The recent controversy involving the wearing of tee-shirts by some players has been "challenging" but not of their making. They hope this has now been sorted out!

Our Parliamentary report was from Jeremy Corbyn MP. Who spoke about changes to housing benefit forcing the social cleansing of poor people out of Islington and inner London. He had a 6 hour surgery last Friday mostly made up of private tenants who are being forced out of their homes. His belief that there will have to be caps and controls of private sector housing rents.  He reported on the the "media assassination" of London Metropolitan University over foreign students which has damaged the entire UK reputation for further education. 

Only worry about your pension if there is another Russian Revolution...

I recently went to an "off the record" Chatham House rules debate on whether closed defined benefit pension schemes should invest in equities (shares) or not?

Now, I doubt very much that all that many people will share my keen interest in such matters, but if you currently contribute to a funded defined benefit pension scheme or if you have a frozen one from a previous employer then you should. 

This is your money, your "deferred pay" and unless you at least try and take an interest in it then who will you blame if it all goes horribly wrong? 

The argument goes something like this. Pension funds which are "closed" (for some reason it wasn't made clear in the debate but I assume it was funds that were closed to new members and future accrual of pension benefits by existing members) are concerned about the long term not the short term and that the strength of the employer "promise" to the scheme to fund it until it pays out all its obligations is more important than anything else. Such schemes can afford to hold illiquid assets which have attractive tax efficient returns with a low probability of risk. So why invest in risky, liquid and unstable equities? 

The alternative argument was that equities should be part of a mix of investments. Admittedly returns in equities in recent years have been appalling but "No means Never" and you should not throw the baby out with the bath water. UK Pensions PLC have massive pension shortfalls in funding liabilities and the only way to close this gap is the long term historic out performance from equity investments. Past performance is not guarantee of the future but the long term equity premium over bonds is an accepted market compensation for risk. 

Why this is important is that if the trustees of your pension scheme gets this equities and/or bonds decision wrong, then your scheme may end up in the tender mercies of the Government Pension Protecting Fund (PPF).  The PPF is a very good thing but most people would lose out financially if their pension had to be rescued by it. 

So the lesson is if you are in such a scheme then take an active interest in it and in the trustees that run it on your behalf. Read the stuff they send out to you, ask questions, take part in elections of member nominated trustees, turn up to any meetings and even consider standing yourself to be a trustee. Make sure that your scheme is run in the interests of the beneficiaries and not by any vested interests (and there are many). 

Apparently there is an argument that the only real danger to equities not out performing bonds is if the economy suffered from something completely dramatic as the Russian revolution of 1917. 

I hesitate to point out that next week is in fact the 95th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Storming of the Winter Places. I hope they will keep "Pleb Gate" locked up for this anniversary.

Update: I have just been reminded that the number one issue with closed schemes is that they cost far, far more to run when closed than if they were kept open. Pension funds need new blood, new contributors to stop them becoming mature and cash deficit. Millions of workers are simply being cheated and conned out of a decent retirement while employers are often being mislead and badly advised. While many DB schemes and Government regulations need to be updated they do not have to be closed. If they are closed then it is in the real long term interests of the workers and employers that they should be reopened. 

Starbucks the Tax Thieves and Ripped-Off Britain

Check out the web site "Ripped-Off Britons". 

Re-elect Obama Video #Forward

Austerity: What next after #Oct20?

A rather intense (to be polite) picture of me speaking at Saturday's SERTUC Council meeting at Congress House. The New TUC GS Frances O'Grady had just made a cracking speech.

I was supporting the GLATUC motion on "Austerity".

"President, Council, John Gray UNISON speaking in favour of Motion 1. I will try and keep this short since much of what I wish to say has already been said. But "What next" after Oct 20 is the key issue for the Labour Movement. We must firstly continue to educate and inform our members in the Great Battle of Ideas over the Economic Alternative to Austerity.

Despite the magnificent march of last weekend, I am reminded of past reports by our own Regional secretary, Megan, to this Council and the comments you have just heard from Frances, that a majority of trade union members still think that "Austerity" is necessary, the "Cuts" are necessary and there is "No Alternative".  

While we can turn out many of our activists and their families on a Saturday to protest unless we can also persuade our rank and file members, their families and their friends that there is a different way to run our country, then we are simply not going to be able bring about change.

Council, the truth of the matter is that we have a huge job of work to do. We need to not only educate but to  organise and unionise. Especially in the private sector where 85% of the workforce are not only not in any union but many of them have simply no comprehension or understanding of unions. They are Thatchers Grandchildren.

Perhaps Council, one other practical way forward is to bring to peoples attention that there are already examples of successful countries such as Sweden or Norway which are run differently. Frances mentioned "The Spirit Level" research that everyone is better off in more equal societies. Where there is greater income equality, greater trade union density and greater worker involvement in the wider economy.

Arguably Council, there is already out there A Future That Works; and it is only a ferry ride across the North Sea. Council, please support this motion. 

Dan Hodges at West Ham CLP

West Ham Labour Party like many active CLPs prides itself on its political debates. We regularly invite controveral guest speakers to our General Management Committee meetings (GC) which are open to all members to attend.

At GC last week, our Political Education officer had arranged for Labour Blogger and Daily Telegraph columnist, Dan Hodges, to be our guest speaker. See Dan speaking in picture next to the "tweeting" minutes secretary Terry Paul and our Chair, Charlene McLean.

Dan, is let me say, quite a "controversial figure" in the Labour Movement. His mum is former Labour MP and Hollywood actress, Glenda Jackson. He has worked in the past for the Labour Party and the GMB. But he is widely derided as the "Blairite Cuckoo in the Miliband camp". He has been a ferocious critic of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband and a strong supporter of his brother David.

You can check out my twitter comments here (25 October) on his speech and the Q&A. Afterwards the usual suspects took Dan off to "The Goose" in Stratford Broadway to continue the debate.

Dan had made a number of valid points about how fragile the Labour lead in the polls and that we should not at all take victory for granted in any future election (he thinks that unless we change, and change our leader, we will lose). He was willing to take the mick out of himself and be polite and measured in his responses to fairly direct questions and comments.

Yet I think that most people felt he is just plain wrong in his views. I must admit that he reminded me of personable figures on the "ultra left" who you listen to while quietly thinking "Yes, but, no but, but this is nonsense". I don't think the right wing of our Party (and of course we have a right wing and there is nothing per se to be scared of that) understand that the world has changed since 2008 and that we will not achieve what we frankly all want in our society without radically changing the way we run our economy.

Update: apologies but of course Glenda is still a MP (thank you Alex Sobel) and Dan has tweeted that "nice blog" but he didn't say that unless we changed our Party leader we would lose. 

Ulting Walk along the River Chelmer then Boreham hills

Off message but before it gets too wet, cold, dark and miserable I thought I would post on a wonderful 8 mile walk last month.

The walk started near the 12th pilgrimage church, All Saints in Ulting.  Walk along farmland then alongside the River Chelmer and back through the village of Nousley. Stopping off at the "Sportsman Arms" for a little light refreshment.

Walk from the free site Essex Walks. I've posted more pictures on Facebook here. Click on picture to bring up detail.

Frances O'Grady at SERTUC Council

This morning I went to the Trade Union Congress Southern & Eastern Regional Council (SERTUC) as an UNISON delegate at Congress House.

Our keynote speaker was Frances O'Grady, the General Secretary (elect) of the TUC. This was the first time in living memory that any TUC GS had addressed our Council.

Despite being under the weather with a cold, Frances gave a cracking speech. Wide ranging, thought provoking, honest, passionate, but pragmatic.

I base this post on my tweets made during her speech with the usual disclaimer for thumb fumbling haste and any mistakes or omissions are my responsibility.

She firstly greeted us as "sisters, brothers and fellow plebs! SERTUC region is important since 26% of all trade union members live here. We need to act smart and inspire people. Work with different community groups. Even the Women's Institute. Our job is to turn opposition to Austerity into a mass movement and in the long term achieve a better, fairer society.

We must tackle growing income inequality. The top 10% are 500 times richer than the bottom 10%. While the City Spivs get massive bonuses the lowest paid have food banks. This in the 7th richest society in the world.

The "Spirit Level" book proves that such inequality is bad for everyone. We want tax justice. We want Starbucks, Amazon to pay their taxes.

We need a change in economic policy. Even the IMF, which is not known for being a left wing organisation, recognises that workers need to have money in order to buy things to create demand and jobs.

What we want is not only a transfer of wealth but a transfer of power. Why can't we have employee representatives on Company remuneration committees?

It is understandable, but we must be careful about the big danger from a decline in trust in politics. If people lose hope, it could be very bad for us and progressive politics. We have to be very careful about our language.

Any further mobilisation must be a demonstration of strength not weakness. We have to be clever and not burn out our members.

There are arguments that a general strike could be legal but this depends on European law and anyone with any experience of this, knows it takes years for these cases to be decided. Firstly we have to ask our affiliates if there is an appetite for action.  Also, if we have a general strike without a ballot, we have to be honest with people, that they could be dismissed if they take part. Union funds could also be sequested by Courts.  Any general strike cannot just be a public sector strike. It must be supported in the private sector.

Frances finished by making it clear that this is a weak coalition government and that there is widespread fear even in the middle classes, about such things as youth unemployment, housing shortage and the sharks such as Virgin, circling our NHS. If we go about it in the right way we can and will give this government a good kicking.  

(Check out my twitter account for 27th October for a fuller report of Council. I did speak on the Austerity motion which I will post upon separately) 

Corporate Tax-Dodging Causes Austerity #Boycott Starbucks

Companies such as Starbucks, Amazon.CON and Vodaphone seem to think that only the little people should pay taxes. Bite back little people. 

Council Pensions, Mergers & the Infrastructure Cacophony

This morning I was surprised to hear Sir Merrick Cockell, Chair of the Local Government Association (and Leader of Kensington and Chelsea) say on the Today radio programme that he (personally) supports the merger of the £150 billion Local Authority Pension Scheme (LGPS) into 5 or so funds only. There are currently 101 different and separate LGPS funds.

He was being interviewed about a report from The Future Homes Commission  about the need for investment in residential property. He argued that to invest in such infrastructure you need massive scale. There are claims that this merger and investment could result in 300,000 more homes being built every year.

His comments are likely to be more than a little controversial in our sedate world of Council pensions. I am reminded of the bun fight in City Hall here between "merger-ists" and "merger deniers" and the epic battle earlier this month here between the "Wandsworth" Council bulldog and "Gentleman Jim" LPFA.

One side argues that if the schemes merge they will be big enough to invest in such infrastructure funds that will not only provide homes, a much needed boost to the economy but also increase returns and slash costs. The other says "rubbish", bigger doesn't mean better and small is often beautiful (and more democratic and responsive).

By coincidence on Wednesday evening I went to the Parliamentary launch of the report by the Smith Institute "local authority pension funds: investing for growth".  It makes a number of recommendations but broadly supports the idea of a "clearing house" and "pooled" LGPS funds to invest in social housing and infrastructure. Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) Chair Ian Greenwood made it clear at the meeting that the forum was "neutral" with regard to merger of its funds.

In the Q&A I made the point that the report itself didn't appear to address any significant beneficiary concerns and a major reason why pension funds can't already invest in social housing is that property fund managers don't want anything to do with "plebs" and only want to invest in shiny new shopping centres and warehouses. Comrade Michael Johnson threw his usual hand grenade into the proceedings by stating that the LGPS is an Empire run in the interests of the Empire rather than its beneficiaries.

Following this mornings report UNISON has quite rightly reminded everyone that the absolute legal duty of pension schemes is to act in the interests of its beneficiaries (not to make property developers rich).  While I am pretty sure that this does not mean that UNISON is necessarily opposed to such investment, those who propose it need to be damn sure that these investments benefit our members.

Out of the hundreds of organisations that are cited as contributing to the Future Homes report there appears to be no input whatsoever from those whose money it is being proposed should be put at risk?

Check my twitter account @grayee for more details on the "epic battle" (10 October) and Smith report (24 October).