TUC row over public sector pay?
What on earth is going on about the public sector pay composite for the TUC?
There’s apparently a major row going on over the composite which is now something in the region of 2 ½ sides of A4, and it denounces govt attacks on public sector pay properly and comprehensively.
So far so good.
There appears to be some disagreement between those who think the composite should just be a denunciation, and those who want something more to be done about it.
The ‘good guys’ in the dispute seem to be PCS, NUT and Unite – all calling for co-ordinated action across unions, days of action, and a national demonstration to be included in the composite.
This information is plausible and I believe it. What I struggle with is the suggestion that UNISON is not on the same side of this dispute as those unions. With the local government pay disputes North and South of the border stalled our members need unity with members of the other unions.
Why would we be the Union resisting the inclusion in the composite of practical proposals for concrete action.
8 comments:
Much ado about nothing I reckon - another national demonstration - this time on gov't pay restraint -bring it on.
By the way why not ask your oh so progressive ultra friends in PCS how they're voting on motion 39 -'defence expenditure' or should I say unions for the military industrial complex?
Well no, I think the point is not so much about demonstrations (thought these are a way of focusing political pressure on employers who are driven by political rather than economic imperatives) but about coordinated strike action.
As for PCS and defence expenditure, well debbie my friend I don't know yet what policy position they have adopted but if they are defending their members' jobs in the short term then that is surely quite understandable.
I don't think the point of this post was that PCS are "oh so progressive" just that they are sorted out about what to do about public sector pay.
My observation would be that the leadership of PCS aren't that bothered about coming across as "oh so progressive" (and this seems to me to be a good thing).
Some leading trade unionists are terribly radical on all those issues which rank and file trade unionists cannot do much about in the workplace (solidarity with Cuba for example) but not so hot when it comes to defending our interests in the here and now.
Come off it Jon - the Socialist Party claims to lead the PCS and the General Secretary runs with left political forces [such as the SWP] hostile to the Labour Party and the trade union link. So how can that be squared with a call for increased military expenditure at a time when spending on public services and public sector pay is under attack? You expect such opportunism from Unite but surely not the PCS with its left led credentials? A trite reference to 'protecting members jobs' when we're talking about the NATO war machine is hardly a justication. Debbie
how many turned out for the national NHS Demo in March ????
lots of calling for a national demo
but only 5,000 turned up
Debbie, I think you have to accept that leading a major trade union in a capitalist society at the present time will necessarily involve many unpleasant compromises. The points you raise are valid and, when I get the chance I'll blog about this somewhere because I think the left needs to rediscover and argue for arms conversion.
The Socialist Party can claim what it will but PCS is led by PCS members elected by PCS members and it is their legitimate and necessary role to represent the sectional interests of such members and to be guided democratically by the members' will.
I support UNISON's position on the motion in question.
And, anonymous (congratulations on your recent good news by the way which I only heard last night) I think you are trying to justify the non-policy of opposition in principal to national demonstrations which UNISON does not have.
The difference between left wing and right wing leadership in trade unions is not that left wing leaders can create action by some great effort of will or by diktat. It is that left wing leadership tries to encourage and develop rank and file militancy whereas right wing leadership tries hard to stand in its way.
Better by far that we should call for action and fail to mobilise our members than that we should fail to call for action when it is required and thereby miss a rare opportunity to assert the power of our people to defend our interests.
Better still of course that we should call for action and achieve both a good response to that call and a good result from that action!
whoops - that's principle not principal of course (it's Friday and I'm tired and I have had a hell of a couple of days returning to work...)
only bob crow can claim real success and he has never had a national strike
just what has the PCs strikes on pay secured....not one extra penny
'it is their legitimate and necessary role to represent the sectional interests of such members'.
I fundamentally disagree with this Jon.
The same sectionalist arguments arguments have self served right wing trade unionists from the EEPTU at Wapping in 1986/87 to the 2004 coup supporting CTV union leadership in Venezuela [both of whom organised workers in the better paid sectors].
My point is that progressive union leaderships must combine day to day defence of workers material interests with a commitment to socially useful production and a political strategy for social progress. In uncritically me-tooing Prospect's reactionary motion, the PCS leadership is singularly failing to do any of that and therefore exposes its economistic politics.
Your reference to the case for arms conversion hits the nail on the head.
PS I single out PCS simply because in amending the motion they had a golden opportunity to call for an arms conversion or diversification strategy.
The political opportunism of Unite's senior officials is more politically duplicitous given their posturing on anti war platforms.
debbie
Post a Comment