Equality and Human rights Commission attack womens rights again!

Shortly after their abysmal let down of women's rights over equal pay (see last post ) the EHRC suggest that maternity leave should be cut from nine months to six!

What champions of women's rights they are!

Before anyone suggests otherwise this is not at all because I am opposed to giving Fathers (or partners) more time off - i think it is disgracefully that paternity paid leave is only 2 weeks.

There is a clear need for paternity leave to be greatly increased - when I had my first child me and my husband shared the caring responsibilities.

I had my paid time off (6 months then i think) and then a period of unpaid leave having a year off in total and then my husband took 18 months off - all of which was unpaid.

This time around (yes for those of you who don't know yet (which cant be many!) Me and hubby are expecting again due in august) I will have my 9 months paid maternity allowance whilst he gets 2 weeks and then we will both work part time to share responsibilities.

As with the equal pay campaign where we were calling for a levelling up of women's pay to mens' - not a levelling down of mens' pay - what we should be calling for now and what the EHRC should be calling for isn't a reduction in maternity leave but a levelling up of paternity leave.

I will be returning to work after 9 months because I cant afford to take up the extra 3 months I will be entitled to which would be unpaid and many mothers are in the same position.

Unfortunately due to poor timing on my part I wont qualify for the additional maternity pay that my employer provides or statutory maternity pay (I will get maternity allowance) because I wont have been with my employer long enough before I have the baby - there must be hundreds of women caught up in the same situation.

Maternity provision has more than doubled under our labour government from £55.70 in 1997 to £123.06 a week from this year, but we do need to do more to give all parents support with leave, finances and childcare - this is what the EHRC should be calling for not suggesting that we remove some of the benefits that women have fought hard for!

The Future of our Political Fund?

Last year’s UNISON Conference debated our political fund. Although it was only a few years ago that we concluded a review of the political fund arrangements, the aptly titled motion “New Labour: What Do We Get For Our Money?” attracted overwhelming support in the reprioritisation ballot for debate on the final afternoon of Conference. An amendment supported by the National Executive Council was narrowly carried, but (in order to be sure of that support) the NEC did not drop the idea of reviewing the effectiveness of our political fund.

The review has not made much headway thus far and is now to report to next year’s National Delegate Conference. I think that we do need to think ahead about the future, because I am not sure that we can expect to carry on as we are for that much longer.

THE NEED FOR CHANGE

At vesting day UNISON established the unique structure of a political fund with two sections in order to accommodate the different political traditions of NALGO on the one hand and NUPE and COHSE on the other. Over time the proportion of members paying into the Affiliated Political Fund (a.k.a. UNISON Labour Link) has declined and will almost certainly continue to decline. A clear and sizeable majority pay into the General Political Fund. Early attempts by those hostile to Labour Party affiliation to call for a ballot of members on this issue were blocked, leading to an unsuccessful challenge to the Certification Officer. Subsequently Conference has called for and discussed “reviews” of the political fund as this has been permitted by Standing Orders Committee. Conference 2008 shows that the status quo can probably be defended for a few more years - but eventually the status quo is doomed.

I fear that unless all those who believe in political trade unionism (whatever our views on the Labour Party) seek proactively for a new settlement in relation to UNISON’s political fund now we will eventually see outright disaffiliation. If the only strategy to defend UNISON’s relationship with the Labour Party remains one of procedural obstruction occasionally reinforced with red-baiting rants then that may work for a while yet, but when it fails it will leave us with nothing (and in the mean time it provokes needless division).

CONFLICTING DEMANDS ON OUR POLITICAL FUND

The first priority for our political fund is that it should be used to advance the interests of UNISON members. In doing this it ought to reflect the democratic nature of our Union in two ways. First the political fund should be readily subject to the authority of rank and file lay members. Secondly, the fund should reflect the views of members as expressed in their current decisions to choose the General or Affiliated Funds. The present structure fails on both counts. Both sections of the Fund are controlled by largely unaccountable Committees whilst the minority of APF payers exercise a de facto veto on any possible future choice by the majority of GPF payers to back non-Labour candidates.

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE

Because the Rule Book was written with the deliberate intention of entrenching Labour Party affiliation it will always be difficult lawfully to change Rule J as will be required. However, with the support of a majority of the NEC and at Conference, with positive recommendations in ballots of members change would be possible.

ONE OPTION FOR A NEW SETTLEMENT

Here is one idea for a possible future alternative. I believe that we need to have a debate about this across the Union, and that means being prepared to take the risk of advancing new and different ideas. Please shoot this down in flames in the comments. Please pick holes in it and tell me why it wouldn’t work or would be a bad idea. Please also think about what else we might do!

Anyway, this is the idea;

UNISON’s political fund would be under the control of the NEC, through a single Political Committee accountable directly to the NEC and Conference.

UNISON as a trade union would no longer be affiliated to the Labour Party. UNISON would create UNISON Labour Link as a subordinate organisation open to all UNISON members which would be a “socialist society” within the meaning of the Labour Party Rule Book with the twin aims of pursuing the policies of UNISON and affiliating to the Labour Party. (The model for UNISON Labour Link and its relationship to the parent Union could draw upon the experience of e.g. UIA, Care Connect Learning, MiP.)

UNISON Labour Link would be written into the UNISON Rule Book and would be guaranteed a level of funding equivalent to the political fund contributions of all those members who chose to be part of UNISON Labour Link (at the outset all members paying into the Affiliated Political Fund prior to the new settlement would automatically become members of UNISON Labour Link).

The rules of UNISON Labour Link would require it to pursue the policies agreed by UNISON itself, and the Trustees of UNISON Labour Link would be appointed by the UNISON NEC. The management of the day to day work of UNISON Labour Link would be in the hands of a Committee elected by members of UNISON Labour Link itself, but also including UNISON NEC members.

GAINS AND LOSSES

UNISON would lose influence on the Labour Party National Executive Council, at Labour Party Conference and at the National Policy Forum. Whatever we think about our influence over the Government, these would be real losses in terms of influence over Labour Party Policy.

UNISON Labour Link could however secure representation on the Party NEC via the socialist societies section. As UNISON Labour Link could continue to affiliate at constituency level, UNISON policies could be pursued via the constituencies also. UNISON Labour Link could continue to have Constituency Development Plans and to support Labour candidates and elected representatives who support UNISON policies.

Because UNISON itself would not be affiliated to the Labour Party there would be no implications for the affiliation of UNISON Labour Link to the Labour Party were UNISON to choose to support a non-Labour candidate in an election (e.g. Ken Livingstone in 2000). UNISON would therefore be free to make a political decision to support other candidates if that were the wish of Conference and the NEC.

The new structure would be more appropriate, robust and sustainable in circumstances in which a declining minority of members choose to support affiliation to the Labour Party. UNISON itself would be free to pursue the policies of our Union and to respond to any changing political developments unconstrained by affiliation.

Those of us who want to fight for trade union policies in the Labour Party could continue to do so in the name of UNISON without requiring the majority of our brothers and sisters (who do not agree with us) to be members of a trade union itself affiliated to the Labour Party. Our right to continue to do this would be protected by the requirement for a two thirds majority at National Delegate Conference to amend the new Rules.

Subject to the support of the NEC and Conference and of ballot(s) of members this approach would enable the minority of members who choose to pay the political levy to the Labour Party to continue to engage in Labour Party activity as UNISON members whilst permitting the majority who do not make that choice greater freedom, and bringing the political fund under clearer democratic control.

So, what’s wrong with this? What are our other options? Can we credibly expect to defend affiliation on the current basis for another decade (perhaps we can if there is a change of Government)? Is there a positive argument for straightforward disaffiliation (I don’t think so)?

What's the point in an Equality Commission that refuses to support Women's equality?

Some good coverage this week on Equal Pay in the Guardian with
UNISON and the TUC getting some good comments in after the EHRC's disgraceful press release saying that the Equality and Human Rights Commission EHRC does not want pay reviews to be in the equalities bill!

A good selection of letters also today critical of the EHRC including one from me (see below) and Sue Bond PCS Vice President
"A better response to the multi-million pound cost of filling the gender pay gap, the associated gridlock in the employment tribunals and industrial relations problems would be for the government to fund the implementation of equal pay in the public sector. Compared to the cost of the banking bailout this would be a modest expense. What a travesty that the new Equality Commission prefers to perpetuate inequality rather than support the trade unions in making this demand."

This regressive step would be disastrous for women's equality - as if any of UNISON's women members would forget we have been waiting since 1997 for single status to be implemented in local government and we are still no where near achieving this in some boroughs!

Yet the EHRC wants us to abandon this campaign even though we have the law on our side.

Employers especially in the private sector are already using the credit crunch as an excuse to pay less and give poorer terms and conditions - and the equality commission wants to let them use the econimc climate as a reason to ignore equalities as well!

The guardian also highlighted the fact that over their career, women can find that they have been underpaid by up to £360k !


What is the point of an Equality commission that refuses to support women's equality?

Building a Campaigning Trades Council

It is common knowledge on the left and trade union movement in Stoke that North Staffs TUC hasn't been the most dynamic of trade union bodies of late. Its activities mainly consist of not-exactly-inspiring monthly business meetings, which haven't been particularly successful in attracting a younger generation of trade union militants. Its public profile is far from high and it is probably unknown to the majority of the tens of thousands of trade unionists in the area. How to turn this around? We used the occasion of our AGM on Wednesday evening to invite Nick Kelleher from Wolverhampton Trades Council, which has built up a good reputation as an active, inclusive campaigning organisation.

Going by his description, the council Nick and his comrades have built is closer in spirit and method to Stoke Socialist Party meetings than our current two hours of bureaucracy on a Wednesday evening. Wolverhampton's are a lot less formal than North Staffs. Its decision making powers are not encumbered by a high quoracy threshold and its meetings are not taken up by the fetish of rule. The emphasis is on getting things done and attracting new trade unionists into the fold. Labyrinthine discussions of procedure and accounts serve only to put new people off and erode the patience of existing attendees.

This also means taking a pro-active approach to securing and maintaining affiliations. A good proportion of the secretary's duties are taken up with chasing affiliates down. For Nick the key to keeping that base going and securing new ones is face to face contact - writing off to the regional TUC to moan about x branches not sending in their fees and delegates is not enough.

Trades councils also have to think about making themselves attractive. A welcoming atmos is pointless if there isn't anything interesting to talk about. For Wolves the key has been a regular programme of speakers and strive to have a guest speaker every month, so at least each meeting has a certain freshness about it. By way of contrast, aside from Nick, North Staffs has only had one other guest speaker in the previous 12 months. Nick has found people will always tend to turn up if Thompson's Solicitors send someone along for a talk on some aspect of workplace legislation, or if an ongoing dispute sends some strikers along.

Moving on to the discussion, Nick said Wolves TUC has been so successful that it is seen as the only body that has the capacity to coordinate joint actions across trade unions. For instance, it has played a key role organising public sector demos and rallies. It has got to this position by standing firmly against inter-union rivalry - Nick has recruited workers to many different unions, and as such has aided his and the trades council's role as a facilitator.

There's also been some success in attracting women. Of Wolves TUC's nominated delegates of 60, forty-five are men and 15 are women. A third of the men regularly attend, but so do half of the women. Parity may be a way off, but its last AGM saw attendance evenly split between the genders.

Also another key point coming out of the discussion was the feeling the council is the collective property of its members. Nick said that in Wolves TUC its not just down to the officers to do the building, it falls on the shoulders of everyone. That ethos has helped keep itself turned outwards.

This is all very well, but is there a place for trades councils in Britain today? After all the historical trend has been toward their closure as lay activists have dropped out of labour movement activity. North Staffs for instance is the sole survivor of a movement of trades councils that were dotted all over Staffordshire. But as Wolverhampton has demonstrated, there is certainly a role they can play provided they transform themselves into campaigning bodies that have a visible presence in local politics. They possess the advantage of a name and apparatus already recognised by the trade union movement, and through branch affiliations and connections with the national TUC, it has access to the kind of resources the NSSN, for example, does not.

One should not fetishise these advantages. Again, using the NSSN for comparison, as 'official' bodies in the last instance they can be overruled and subject to the authority of national bodies - there have been plenty of instances where communist-influenced councils have been shut down or taken over by the regional or national organisation. This is not the case with the NSSN. Its purpose as an 'unofficial' rank and file movement of shop stewards and union activists give it much greater room for manoeuvre. The two do different things but can compliment each other, and especially so now as the labour movement's emphasis turns to rebuilding our strength.

Where North Staffs TUC is concerned, this was easily the best meeting I've attended so far. There has, despite everything, been a drip drip inclusion of new activists this past year or so and a new determination to step up its presence. Watch this space.

Cross posted at A Very Public Sociologist.

Alan Walter

I have just heard the terrible news that Alan Walter, Chair of Defend Council Housing, has died.

Alan had done an incredible job to coordinate campaigns in defence of council housing and will be greatly missed.

UNITE AMICUS election result

A well deserved hat tip to Rene Lavanchy for the news that Derek Simpson appears to have hung on in the election for Joint General Secretary of UNITE but with less than a majority of the vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement (and I say that as someone who knows what it’s like when an incumbent General Secretary does well in an election!)

Rene reports that the results he has received, unconfirmed as yet by Unite the Union or Electoral Reform Services are as follows;
Derek Simpson 60,048 - 37.85%
Jerry Hicks 39,307 - 24.84%
Kevin Coyne 30,603 - 19.34%
Paul Reuter 28,283 - 17.87%
Total valid votes: 158,241 (approximately 12.9% of Amicus membership).

The votes are also online here.

SOLIDARITY 25 years on

Hello all,

Ive stuck this up on my blog - with Pauls permission of course. :)

 

Regards
Marsha-Jane

www.unionfutures.blogspot.com

xx

 

 

25 year's on - I attach a 5^th March song, 'We Won't Forget'!

 

I was prompted to dig this out by the crass, patronising nonsense on the Today Programme. 

 

Of course there were mistakes but the miners, communities and support groups should be honoured and their struggle remembered.

 

Everyone is so tactically clever now but they had no other strategy to attempt to stop Thatcher's onslaught at the time.

 

The words distil the views of NUM members interviewed one year after the end of the Miners Strike 1994-5.

 

Yours still in solidarity

 

~paul~

 

Paul Mackney

 

 

Former NATFHE (UCU) General Secretary 1997-2007

Also President Birmingham TUC in 1984

M: 0

A: PO Box 56929 London N10 1UX

 

 

WE WON'T FORGET (Comrades for life)

 

 

We'll always remember the year of the strike

And the fifth day of March eighty-five

They can say that we lost; they can say what they like

But we had the time of our lives

And we've no regrets; we've no regrets

The flame continues to burn

And we won't forget; we won't forget

United we will return

 

We all fought together – women and men

To stop them closing down mines

If we had our time over we'd do it again

And be quite sure we're ready next time

 

The Congress House traitors had promised for years

Their support would be second to none

You could hear their hearts bleed; you got drowned in their tears

But precisely nothing was done

 

We marched in the streets till we blistered our feet

We withstood the full force of the law

'The miners united they'll never defeat'

We sang till our voices were raw

 

With their truncheons and horses they opened our eyes:

You hold on to what you can defend

Comrades in struggle are comrades for life

And stand solid and true to the end

 

The smug commentators can peddle their lies

We're proud that we formed picket lines

We'll build the resistance and we'll organise

And we'll have the bastards next time

 

And we've no regrets; we've no regrets

Though the flames of vengeance still burn

And we won't forget; we won't forget

United we will return.

 

Paul Mackney (1985)

 

ACAS awards extra 0.3% for Local Government workers pay for 08/09

 

ACAS awards 2.75% pay rise to local government workers

(03/03/09) Unions representing 1.3 million local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, have welcomed an ACAS award of an additional 0.3% pay rise, bringing the 2008-9 pay increase to 2.75% on all pay points. An extra £100 had already been agreed for the lowest paid.

UNISON, UNITE and GMB had been involved in a long-standing dispute over pay, including strike action, last year. They had rejected previous offers and referred the dispute to binding arbitration. The award is backdated to 1 April 2008.

In a joint statement, UNISON, Unite and GMB, said: We welcome the fact that ACAS has accepted our arguments that members should receive a higher pay increase. ACAS stated that the award is justified and affordable in the context of the claim for the year 2008/2009

ACAS also recognised that local government workers are among the lowest paid in the public sector and they have been affected significantly by the worsening economic climate. We have always argued that local government workers have become the poor relations of the public sector, added the statement. They have contributed enormously to improving local services and meeting council efficiency targets and they deserve a better deal. “

Cleaners, refuse staff, school meals workers, librarians, admin and clerical workers, teaching assistants, home care and social workers are among those covered by the award.

 

Regards
Marsha-Jane

www.unionfutures.blogspot.com

xx