Setback for pay battle

Unison Local Government members voted yes for strike action but only by 51% to 49% on a turnout of 25%.

As a result the NJC Committee voted against proceeding with strike action by 24 votes to 3.

This is a significant, though not entirely surprising, setback for the overall campaign to build united undustrial action on Brown’s public sector pay limit. It is the result Dave Prentis and the Unison leadership worked for. Anyone who saw the material they produced, allegedly for a yes vote, will be in no doubt of that.

With only two sides of A4 to put forward the case for action Prentis and co thought it would be a good idea to use the front to explain the employer’s case. They had ‘gone out on a limb’ by offering the lowest grades more than 2.5%. To offer any more would certainly mean cuts in services. And so on and so on. Still they could have a real go at mobilising people on the reverse side couldn’t they?

Well they could but, of course they chose not to. Side two told council workers that, even if they voted yes, ‘it wouldn’t be easy’. It would require protracted strike action, during which they would not be paid and, even then, there were no guarantees of winning. It was appalling stuff. The Unison leadership’s role in this pay campaign has been shameful from start to finish.. They wanted to accept the deal in September by putting it to ballot with no recommendation. That was overturned by the NJC who voted for a ballot with a recommendation for strike action. They then tried to stop that be calling a special service Executive. That failed too when the service group Executive supported the call for action in defiance of the leadership. This was endorsed by the industrial action committee.

Unison’s spineless bureaucrats then fell back on a more subtle tactic. As they controlled the ballot and the material that went out they loaded it heavily against a yes vote and simultaneously discouraged branches from producing their own campaigning material. This went hand in hand with disciplinary threats against local and national elected representatives who were central in working for a positive vote.

Shameful but you don’t need to look far for motives. Unison nominated Gordon Brown for Labour leader, despite their professed policy of opposition to privatisation, low pay and anti-union laws. Some at the top believe it is their job to serve the government rather than their members. And here is a firm prediction. Before the next election at least one of these hucksters will have been ’selected’ for a safe Labour seat (my money is on local government negotiator Heather Wakefield) and beyond that at least one other will be dressed in ermine and falling asleep on the benches of the upper House It would be nice if before that they were swept out of office by their poorly paid and even more poorly represented members.

Don’t mourn, as Joe Hill once famously said, organise

Flexible workers, intransigent bosses: the reality of the postal deal.

CWU postal workers will now be balloted on the deal struck between their leaders and Royal Mail management two weeks ago. Last week the postal Executive met for two days without making a decision, and worse still without letting the troops on the ground, or even the local elected representatives know anything about the deal. Eventually the Executive decided to send the negotiators back to management to look again at some of the terms. Royal Mail management made it clear that they would move no further and what is more they announced this in public. All these things were clear indications of who was getting most from the deal and who was feeling confident and cocky. Finally the postal Executive are recommending acceptance of the deal. There will be an active campaign for a No vote, however, and the arguments below explain why. They have been put together by Workers Liberty after discussions with their postal worker members and sympathisers.

‘The CWU leaders obviously didn’t think the deal was likely to be accepted back on 12 October; but the greatest weight in favour of a yes vote in the ballot will come from the simple fact of delay. Industrial action has been demobilised, and the members have scandalously been left for two weeks with the message:
“Trust us. Complicated negotiations. About what? Oh, can’t tell you that yet. It’s only your jobs and work conditions and pay we’re talking about. Complicated things, which you’d best leave to us”.
The final sticky point was the unilateral changes introduced by Royal Mail bosses after the four days of strikes on 4 to 9 October. On that the terms are: “All managerial executive
action notified to take place on and from 24 October 2007 will be returned to stage 3 of the IR Framework and any disagreements previously at Stage 3 will be returned to Stage
2 for resolution. All parties will work together in a positive way to resolve outstanding issues within the spirit of the national agreement and to facilitate this any CWU representatives who have had their facility time suspended will have it restored. Any revisions introduced during week commencing 22 October will be reviewed in line with the IR procedures”.
What about the changes introduced on 10 October, including the new, later start times the imposition of which provoked unofficial action across the country? The main agreement says: “Royal Mail has introduced later start times for operational reasons. CWU note these
changes. Given that there has been little or no opportunity for discussion about these changes at local level, both Royal Mail and CWU are committed to resolve any outstanding
issues. Royal Mail and CWU will urgently review these arrangements at local level in line with the following:
Henceforth the normal start times will be between 0600 and
0630…”
In other words, total capitulation by the union. The terms include a wide-ranging drive for “flexibility”.

► Bosses can vary your daily hours within a weekly total, so individuals could be scheduled to work 7 hours on a Tuesday and 9 hours on a Friday”.
► “Individuals may be asked… to vary their duty times by up to 30 minutes on a swings and roundabouts basis”.
► You may have to work in another office nearby instead of our normal workplace, or “to undertake other work outside your] normal duties”.
► Following on, there will be “new arrangements to cover for one another and develop sensible options to absorb absences, and increased workload… annualised hours or
banked hours, flexible working”.

The problem is here is not only increased management control, and decreased control by workers over their own work conditions, working hours, and daily lives. It is also that in Royal Mail, with low basic wages, many workers depend heavily on overtime to make ends meet. The terms are designed to cut overtime, and thus effectively cut pay, without reducing toil.
Two other measures will also cut back workers’ access to payments above the basic: “the majority of night shifts will cease by March 2008… Royal Mail will cease Sunday collections from 21 October”. The “flexibility” is to be negotiated locally, but with the proviso that offices will get the next pay rise – 1.5% from 7 April 2008 – only after they have implemented the “flexibility”.
The headline pay deal is 5.4% from 1 October 2007. But that covers the whole period from April 2007 to April 2009, supplemented only by a lump sum of £175 per full-time worker to cover April-September 2007 (but that comes from the now-scrapped Employee Share of Savings Scheme, i.e. it is double-counting money already supposed to be available)
and the conditional 1.5% in April 2008. With the losses of overtime and bonuses, it looks like many postal workers will suffer a cut in real pay.
The pensions issue has been separated from the pay agreement. A 90-days “pensions consultation process” will follow. But, if the pay-and-conditions deal is accepted, that
“consultation process” will take place with Royal Mail bosses knowing that it is very unlikely indeed that the CWU will try new industrial action however bad the pension terms. Or, to put it another way, the deal means the union terminating its most powerful industrial action for over a decade without securing something solid on pensions.
The agreed terms for the “consultation” include “the final salary scheme to be replaced for the future by a similar defined benefits scheme” and “a new scheme for new entrants”. In other words: the final salary scheme will go for all workers; and whatever protections existing workers gain, new entrants will be on something worse. The terms include
“the right to retire at 60 for existing scheme members”, but don’t say what level of pension those existing workers will be able to get without working to 65.
Vote no, and organise to defeat the deal!’

Well, you don’t say!

‘National tests for seven and 11-year-olds are putting children under stress and feeding into a “pervasive anxiety” about their lives and the world they are growing up in, according to an intimate portrait of primary school life published today.’ That’s one of the conclusions reached by an academic team charged with reviewing primary education in England. Read more here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/primaryeducation/story/0,,2189589,00.html

I don’t why it takes the commissioning of a team of education academics to demonstrate this or, worse still, whether the New Labour government will change it’s obsession with tests and league tables as a result of the findings but teachers, parents and very many children have known the truth of the statement above for over a decade now.

Time to dust off the boycott of SATs maybe?

SWP finally find some self-Respect?

According to the Socialist Unity blog, the crisis in Respect has taken a
dramatic new turn with the SWP expelling three leading members for
softness towards George Galloway.

“News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob
Hoveman have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick
joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant
newspaper…

The expulsions followed an ultimatum to Nick that he should turn down the
position of Respect national organiser or resign from the SWP. A similar
ultimatum was given to Rob and Kev that they should stop working in George
Galloway’s office, or leave the SWP.

These three comrades have been internally critical of the SWP Central
Committee’s handling of Respect, but have been very disciplined by not
airing that criticism outside the ranks of the SWP. There still remain
critics of the CC’s position within the SWP, including some very well
known comrades, but the expulsions are obviously a shot over their bows as
well”.

Meanwhile, the East London Advertiser claims that the Respect council
group in Tower Hamlets, the jewel in its hijab, may split into two groups,
one led by Galloway ally Abjol Miah and the other by SWP-close Oliur
Rahman.

Reproduced here is a commentary on this course of events from Martin Thomas of Workers Liberty:

‘Whatever you think of the SWP CC, Hoveman, Ovenden, and Wrack are
despicable wretches if they break the discipline of what they presumably
consider to be a revolutionary party (albeit a mistaken one) just in order
to get or keep jobs in the entourage of George Galloway. That the SWP’s
escapade with Respect has bred such attitudes even in its leading circles
shows the extent of the degradation it has brought.

But, on the face of it, the expulsions look like insane “control-freakery”
by the SWP Central Committee. After all, if SWP have to accept a National
Organiser counterweighing Respect National Secretary (and SWP member) John
Rees, what better for them than to have an SWPer in the post? Even a
dissident SWPer can’t be a bad option for them, surely?

These expulsions must pretty much terminate the possibilities of the
Respect crisis ending in anything other than a split. Organisationally and
electorally, the split will damage SWP more than Galloway, and indeed
organisationally and electorally it may positively benefit Galloway. So
why expel?

The SWP Central Committee’s brains must be somewhat fried after thirty
years of operating a regime of “expel first, ask questions afterwards,
respond to all critics by denouncing them as vermin”.

But insane? I doubt it. The likeliest explanation is that the SWP CC is
convinced that a split with Galloway is inevitable anyway (the Tower
Hamlets report would fit in with that), reckons that it cannot avoid
losing some people to Galloway, and wants to cauterise in order to
minimise the losses.

The fundamental factor here, I suggest, is that the SWP Central Committee
knows perfectly well what Galloway is – has known all along – and has no
higher opinion of him than we do at Solidarity and Workers’ Liberty.

Nevertheless, they thought they could play clever. I remember a
conversation I had with David Glanz, leader of the ISO, Australian
offshoot of the SWP, around the time Respect was being formed. Everything
on the left being rather smaller-scale in Australia, you can actually have
a human (if maybe rather tense) conversation with leading ISOers there;
it’s not like in Britain, where SWPers whom I’ve known for years look
straight through me, as if I’m not there, when we meet by chance.

I put our assessment of Galloway to Glanz, no holds barred. Well, he said,
everything you say may be true, and I’m sure any hook-up with Galloway
can’t last long, but at the end of it the SWP can come away with more
members. And that is what matters.

The SWP Central Committee followed Glanz’s reasoning. That meant that they
had to say things about Galloway – great anti-imperialist, good socialist,
blah blah – which they knew to be untrue. Unfortunately, some SWP members,
even leading and experienced SWP members, took the blather for good coin.

What can the SWP CC do now? Tell those SWP members that the SWP CC was
lying, and knew all along that Galloway was the sort of person any
socialist should shun? Or just try to get through the split with as few
losses as possible by playing the SWP loyalty card?’

Divisional Secretaries Briefing

I will be away from base taking part in the union’s annual briefing event for divisional secretaries from Wednesday to Friday so there may not be any new postings here until the weekend. Internet access is unreliable in deepest Grantham but the course itself is probably the best training event the union runs and most of us find it invaluable. If there is anything worth reporting a way will be found to post it but comments and responses requires me to get into my home email so that will have to wait

This year it should see the official launch of a 10-week campaign to get a good turnout and a clear ‘yes’ vote for action on pay. Time will be found for politicking and networking. In particular we might gather our thoughts on the prospects of getting a respectable vote to reject the 2.5% sixth form pay offer.

Thanks to Andy Dixon, Martin Ohr, Jean Lane and Andy Parsons for being the first to enter comments on various subjects covered on this blog and to various others for sending me individual reactions by email

Reds rediscover their style (sort of)

I was at OT yesterday to see United put four past Wigan Athletic. The free-flowing football didn’t really start until the second half but the flair and speed of the goals was just what we have been waiting for since August. Last year United were blowing teams away with attacking verve and style but this season so far they have had huge amounts of possession but created far fewer chances. Most fans haven’t worried too much as they have still managed to win but reds expect to watch stylish attacking football not narrow utilitarian 1-0 victories.

The most pleasing thing about yesterday’s win was the fact that some of the new boys began to look really good. Gerard Pique and Danny Simpson had really impressive games and Carlos Tevez opened the scoring with a tremendous individual goal. The pick of the bunch, however, was the young Brazilian Anderson who looked like an old-style midfield maestro. Early sightings this season suggested to me that he was being pushed into the first team too early and the Coventry debacle in the Carling Cup made you wonder whether he would ever be a £17m player. For now at least he has shown us a glimpse of what he could become.

Mike Riley the referee from Leeds had his characteristically poor game.

United are back (I hope)

NUT Executive confirm pay ballot

The NUT National Executive voted yesterday to confirm plans to ballot members to oppose the government’s planned pay limit for public sector workers. These plans will see the union ballot members in schools from December 10th until January 8th with an initial strike day set for January 30th. The Secretary of State for Education is due to receive the report from the teachers’ pay review body on the settlement for 2008-11 on October 26th and usually responds within weeks. The union leadership was keen to delay any ballot until the award for 2008-11 was known to members.

I proposed (and Alex Kenny froma East London seconded) an amendment to the timetable to enable us to open our ballot on October 29th, close it on November 19th and take action in the week beginning November 26th. This would mean that we could co-ordinate action with Unison local government members who are due to strike on November 14th and 15th over the same general issue. Their potential action is very important to teachers as they represent tens of thousands of school support staff. The civil service union, PCS, is also planning action alongside Unison. We would not have been able to strike on the same day but we would have been able to be part of a joint period of industrial action against the pay freeze which would maximise pressure on the government and public and media attention on what the issue.

 The proposal to go for an earlier ballot was defeated by 21 votes to 15 with 4 abstentions.

It was nevertheless worth putting to the Executive because (a) it was a better timetable for co-ordinated action (b) it encouraged people opposed to it to commit more clearly to balloting and action on their own timetable and (c) it increased the pressure on the union to produce effective material to build support amongst members for action on pay.

So now we unite around the campaign to get a yes vote and a decent turnout in the ballot later this term. 

NUT consultative conference on ‘faith schools’

The NUT is holding a seminar open to all members on ‘faith schools’. That’s ’schools controlled by religious organisations’ in plainer language. It will take place on Friday November 23rd at the Union’s HQ in Hamilton House Mabledon Place, London from 10am until 4.30.

The seminar has been organised by a Faith Schools Task Group established by the Union under the terms of a motion passed at the 2006 annual conference. At that conference there were motions calling for a move away from  religiously-controlled schools, opposition to the expansion of their number and the absorption of the existing faith schools into the local authority system of community schools. Against these was a motion, from a left-wing branch, supporting the right of, specifically, the Muslim community to it’s own faith schools on the grounds of equity. As is often the case both these positions were defeated in favour of an Executive-inspired fudge which called for the establishment of a working party which would work on developing Union policy and bringing a report to a future Conference. The group would have representatives from the regions and the Executive, it would organise a seminar and work to a set remit.

I am a member of the Task Group which has met on numerous occasions over the last 18 months and heard and interrogated evidence from the Catholic Education Service, the National Secular Society, the Jewish Education Council, the British Humanist Society, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement amongst others. We have also poured over a substantial amount of written evidence from religious and secular groups and academics.

The seminar will help to shape our final report which will go to the 2008 Annual Conference so I would urge NUT members to go along. I would particularly urge members who belive in a secular education system to attend and ensure that their view is heard. The danger is that, in an attempt to be even-handed, representation at the event from those who work in or strongly believe in religiously-controlled schools will heavily outweigh that from those who believe that the right to religious freedom should not include a right to proselytise on the rates or to select or reject children from any school because of the religious practices or beliefs of their parents.

For more details of the event, including how to register click on this link:

http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=4069

The Chavistas: a conversation or a monologue?

Today I received this invitation:

Conversation on the Venezuelan Constitutional Reform
Thursday 4 October, 6.30pm
Bolívar Hall, 54 Grafton Way, London W1T
nearest Tube: Warren Street.
No booking necessary.

With: Colin Burgon, Labour MP for Elmet, President of the Venezuelan Labour Parliamentary Group
Julia Buxton (tbc), Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Cooperation and Security, University of Bradford
Alfredo Toro Hardy, Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Chair: Professor Geoffrey Hawthorn, University of Cambridge

Presumably that’ll be the ‘constitutional reform’ that does the following:

• extends the presidential term from 6 to 7 years
• allows the president to decide to re-submit for election as often as he wants, unlike now
• gives the President the authority to promote officers at all ranks in the army
• gives the President ’supreme authority in the chain of command in all its entities, components and units’
• authorizes Chavez to rule by decree for a further year with the power to renew this authority later.

 It appears not to be a popular view on the left just now but whether this guy is broadly on the side of good or not we should be just a bit sceptical of the concentration of so much state power in the hands of any one individual or party. Chaez’s keenest fans will defend all this with stories of his achievements and the dangers he faces. But whether from left or right the concentration of powers in this way (not to mention the revent decision to form alliances with reactionaries like Ahmedinajad) has always been justified by reference to external threats. How many of thse experiences to we have to go through before we learn?  

And that is only a brief summary. For more see www.ft-ci.org/article.php3?id_article=975