I went to the national meeting with Jerry Hicks and his supporters on Saturday, to discuss how to build on the 80,000 votes in the recent General Secretary election.
The meeting agreed in principle to set up a new network, called Unite Fight Back, to develop solidarity networks as well as campaigning to improve UNITE policies and rules along the lines of the Jerry's election campaign. I did a lengthy post explaining why I backed Jerry in the election campaign, but I think it can really be summarised in three themes:
The need for a more effective fight back against austerity - in deeds not just words
The need to change the relationship with Labour so they don't take our money for nothing
The need to make UNITE's leadership and structures more accountable and less remote
It's early days yet, but there's already a web site, Facebook page and Twitter account up and running. Whether you backed Jerry, Len or (like most members) nobody at all, whether you want to be part of the new network or not, sign up for these and help break down the lack of communication in UNITE. It really should feel like you've got a million members behind you whenever any members are taking action.
The new web site also has more detail on the About page.
The (much needed) branch reorganisation has been handled pretty badly in many cases, leaving members in limbo without a functioning branch.
Jerry Hicks' web site is reporting a decision by the London & Eastern Regional Committee to close large numbers of branches with effect from 15th May, without keeping members informed, much less consulting them, leaving them without access to the union's democratic structures until new branches are up and running. If this is the case it would not appear to be in line with the Executive Council's decisions on branch reorganisation.
A meeting to discuss (and oppose) the closures has been organised in Chelmsford for 16th May.
Whoever you supported in the General Secretary election, the 80,000 votes (36%) for Jerry Hicks should be immensely encouraging for anyone who wants to see UNITE as a genuine "fighting back" union.
McCluskey is widely seen as a left union leader - his radical speeches have a high profile and he has introduced a number of positive changes in UNITE since taking office. That such a large number of UNITE members wanted something more than this should encourage everyone who wants a more member-led union, a more serious fight against austerity and a relationship with Labour where members get something for their money.
Jerry and his supporters have begun organising meetings round the country to discuss how to build on the magnificent vote - details are being posted here on Jerry's web site. The discussions at regional meetings will be followed by a national meeting in London on Saturday 25th May. Join the discussions!
Between 1 May and 22 May, UNITE members in the UK will be balloted again, this time over whether the union should keep its "political fund".
Details about the ballot and resources are here including this video campaigning for a YES vote:
The law says that to keep our political fund, UNITE must ballot all its members at least every ten years. There are a lot of misconceptions about the political fund. Some are being addressed by UNITE's campaign for a YES vote, but others are being fed.
In the UNITE Rulebook, Rules 23 & 24 deal with the Political Fund, while Rule 22 covers "Political Organisation - the Labour Party". While the money in our political fund can be used for anything at all, only money from the political fund can be used for certain purposes, which are set out in Rule 23.1 (taken from the legislation). Read them for yourself, but they basically boil down to supporting political parties or office holders, or persuading people to vote for or against candidates.
The UNITE guide to the ballot (which does contain some useful material) highlights a court case involving NALGO in 1987. NALGO ran a "Make People Matter" publicity campaign for a year, attacking the Tory government and its policies on public services and focussing on Tory marginal constituencies. The courts ruled that the main purpose of the campaign was to persuade people not to vote Conservative, and since NALGO had no political fund, that it could not continue or spend money on the campaign for the duration of the election.
I don't think the facts support the UNITE guide's claim that since this case "if unions want to have any kind of political voice, to campaign for changes for working people or against government policies, we must ballot for a Political Fund every ten years". Even the case cited only banned the NALGO campaign during the election itself. It's only in recent years that PCS and NUT (which aren't affiliated to Labour) decided to set up political funds, yet most of their members work in the public sector and they have obviously been campaigning against government policies long before they established political funds.
Better arguments for a YES vote
It's a shame that UNITE is exaggerating the case so much in order to persuade members to vote YES. Because there are much stronger arguments for having a political fund which go right to the heart of the matter. Without a political fund, for example:
We could not urge members or the public to vote against parties like the BNP which seek to divert people's anger about austerity onto scapegoats and which oppose everything UNITE stands for.
We could not support those few MPs, councillors and candidates who do actually stand up for our members.
We could not campaign against re-electing councillors or MPs who have led particular attacks on our members.
We would risk getting bogged down in expensive and distracting legal cases whenever our campaigning criticised the policies of a particular party, especially around election times.
The reality is that for better or worse, governments affect the lives of UNITE members inside and outside the workplace. Workers suffer inadequate legal protection on every issue from redundancy and TUPE to health & safety and blacklisting. Unions are tied up with genuine "red tape" designed to use the threat of legal action to pressure union officials to obstruct members taking the action they decide is needed to defend their interests. When big business and the rich spend eye-watering sums lobbying for their interests, working people cannot afford to restrict our participation in democracy to putting a cross in a box every few years. As individuals we have no realistic prospect of influencing national events, but collectively we can. A union that doesn't engage on political issues is defending its members with one hand tied behind its back.
Labour letting us down
The UNITE material for the election stresses that this vote isn't about affiliation to Labour. This is correct. Affiliation is in our UNITE Rulebook and changing that will require a rule change at a Rules Conference (the next one is June/July 2015). But as Jerry Hicks highlighted in his recent election campaign, there's plenty that UNITE could do short of disaffiliation to avoid funding attacks on our own members.
The UNITE campaign for the political fund emphasises every aspect of the political fund except for the support for Labour. But this is grossly misleading. While there are many positive things UNITE could spend its political fund on, let's look at how it is actually spent.
The most recent accounts published on the Certification Officer web site are for 2011. Page 10 covers the political fund, showing members contributions at £6,543,000. The only expenditure was £3,407,000 in Labour Party affiliation fees and £667,000 on "Administration expenses in connection with political objects". The balance in the political fund rose from £3,020,000 to £5,489,000. Just over a million UNITE members contribute to the political fund, with just over half a million not contributing, including 169,292 who had completed an exemption notice. There's an ever so slightly more detailed breakdown in note 2 on page 27, which does include the tantalising figure of £274,000 spent on "other grants and donations". I did write to the UNITE Finance Director the previous year, asking about the other grants and donations - "Are these Labour Party related (e.g. CDP money) or contributions to non-party-related campaigns etc?", but never got a reply, despite chasing it up.
In reality, the vast majority of UNITE's spending from the political fund currently goes to support the Labour Party. From the limited information available, I'm unable to determine any spending that actually went elsewhere. Part of the problem is lack of transparency. Despite requests, the finance reports which come to the Executive Council don't show the income to, or balance of, the political fund separately. They do show projected political spending continuing at around £3.4m for the next few years, but don't yet show 2015, when we expect the General Election. In my 10 years on the union executive, I don't recall any decision or report on expenditure from the political fund ever coming before the EC (or the Regional Committee when I was on that), other than for Constituency Development Plans (CDPs).
What we can see from the accounts on the Certificaion Officer web site
is that (as usual between elections) the political fund balance is being
built up rather than spent. I have argued elsewhere that this was a major factor behind Len McCluskey's desire to bring forward the General Secretary election.
Getting the GS election out of the way now will allow him to pump
millions from the political fund into Labour for the next General
Election without his successor having to justify this during a General
Secretary election at the same time.
The union's political committees are closely tied to Labour and closed to the vast majority of UNITE members. A small percentage of UNITE members are in the Labour Party, but not even all of these are eligible to take part in UNITE's political conferences and committees - Rule 22.5 puts extra hurdles in the way. Only Labour Party members who are delegated from other UNITE committees or who are delegates to Constituency Labour Parties can take part. The effect is often to make these committees more like the voices of Labour in the union, rather than the voice of the union in the Labour Party.
The real UNITE policy
Behind all the spin about using the political fund for purposes other than Labour, the real agenda of UNITE's leadership was made clear at the last Policy Conference. Composite 16, which included motion 81 from the IT & Comms National Industrial Sector Committee, which read:
This Policy
Conference resolves that until the Labour Party adopts and actively pursues policies
in support of trade union freedom, at least 10% of members' Political Fund contributions
that would historically have been spent on the Labour Party shall be used by Unite
to directly campaign for trade union freedoms instead of being used for contributions
to, or support for, the Labour Party.
This Policy
Conference resolves that until the leadership of the Labour Party publicly supports
Unite members taking industrial action against austerity and in defence of public
services, at least 10% of members' Political Fund contributions that would historically
have been spent on the Labour Party shall be paid into Unite's National Dispute
Fund.
To ensure transparency,
this Policy Conference resolves that Unite's accounts will show contributions, expenditure,
assets and liabilities relating to the Political Fund separately from its general
funds.
Len and the majority of the EC argued vigorously against the motion, which was defeated at the Policy Conference (though it got a sizeable vote). If the spin was true, and lots of our political fund was already being used for non-Labour purposes, the motion would have been passed "on the nod" rather than being one of the most contentious topics of the whole conference.
Not convinced to vote YES?
Maybe you're not convinced that unions should play any political role at all. Or you disagree so strongly with how UNITE currently uses its political fund that you think it's actively doing harm.
But I'd still argue you should vote YES.
You have the ability to "opt out" of the political fund as an individual. By voting NO you deny any choice to the rest of the members who do think the union needs a political voice and want to contribute despite the problems.
If you believe that a majority oppose the current political strategy of UNITE, we should be able to change it for the better - wouldn't that be a better approach? Voting NO means siding with every Tory who wants to prevent working people having any voice in politics at all.
As you may have gathered, I don't agree with UNITE's current political strategy. But I'm still contributing to the political fund. I think there's a problem with "opting out" as an individual - it leads people to see the union's political work as no longer their responsibility or concern (even though it still affects us all), and give up on the idea of changing it for the better. Changing it requires a collective democratic decision. I'd much rather people contributed and fought to change UNITE policy rather than giving up and opting out.
What next?
The immediate task is to ensure a YES vote in the ballot, so that UNITE can continue to have a political voice. But we should fight to change UNITE's political strategy too.
Jerry Hicks' magnificent 79,819 votes in the General Secretary election, despite Len McCluskey's "red-baiting" appeals for right wing support, reflected widespread anger at UNITE's ongoing support for Labour MPs even when they aren't representing us.
Those Labour councillors like Kevin Bennett and Councillors Against Cuts who vote against the cuts deserve everyone's support. But Labour suspends or expels people who stand up for UNITE policies.
Jerry argued that we should support MPs and councillors when they support us, not keep pumping in money in the hope that they might do so in the future. He also argued for renegotiating the Labour Party affiliation fee to reduce our massive contributions. The affiliation fee is £3 a year per member, and UNITE's affiliation fees are over £3.4m a year, suggesting we are affiliating on a membership significantly greater than the 1m who contribute to the political levy. If we can do this, why can't we affiliate on a lower membership figure as a start, instead of giving Labour this extra money?
We should also demand that UNITE spends its political fund more in line with the impression created by its YES campaign. I live in the north-west, where we have Nick Griffin as a BNP MEP. I'd love to see a large chunk of our political fund spent on the Griffin Must Go campaign. The last EC meeting failed to endorse the motion from our Health National Industrial Sector Committee calling for a national demo in defence of the NHS - what better use of our political fund? Campaigns like these could involve a far wider section of our membership than the narrow political committees which are closed even to most Labour Party members, and increase the engagement of UNITE members with politics. Wouldn't that be a more promising political strategy than asking us all to join Labour, get selected as candidates, get elected and then get suspended or expelled if we actually stand up for UNITE policies?
If UNITE continues with its current strategy, things are likely to get worse. We already have a big gap between words and deeds, with the link to Labour acting as a brake on our campaigning. As the General Election approaches, the pressure will build on Len McCluskey and the rest tone down their rhetoric and keep a lid on action. Yet Labour's leaders couldn't make clearer that even if they are elected, they won't reverse the damage being inflicted on working people by the Con-Dems. The absence of a General Secretary election for another five years will make it harder for UNITE's leadership to stand up to these pressures.
If we want to protect our jobs, living standards, services and communities, we are going to have to put up a fight rather than waiting for Labour.
The count is still continuing, but Jerry Hicks has given an interview outside the count where he reports that he hasn't won the election, but has got around a third of the vote. You can watch the interview:
If the official result is anything like this, it is very good indeed. It shows that a large section of the active membership is further to the left than Len McCluskey - more keen to see a real fight against the cuts, more critical of Labour, and more keen to see rank and file union members having a bigger say in their union. It is particularly impressive given that unlike in previous elections, Jerry faced a union apparatus which had only one candidate, rather than being openly divided.
Less encouraging is the turnout. Union News is reporting that Len got around 150,000 votes and a roughly 2-1 margin, which would mean a total of around 225,000 members voting - around 1 in 6. Such a low turnout shows how much more we all need to do to involve members and make sure they feel they are the union and are responsible for its future.
Today (budget day) the PCS union called 250,000 members in the civil service out on strike in a dispute over pay, pensions and working conditions. This was a very important step, restarting national industrial action after the massive set-back suffered when a number of unions signed up to shoddy deals on public sector pensions in December 2011 and the rest dithered rather than carrying forward the tremendous action on November 30th 2011 - allowing the government to impose cuts.
Other unions are now talking about rejoining the fray, notably with the NUT and NASUWT teaching unions which have announced joint rolling strikes starting in the north-west on 27th June.
There's an argument raging in the TUC about how to fight cuts and austerity effectively. Some say we should wait for a Labour government. Quite aside from the problem that members are losing their jobs and services now, this argument is continually undermined by Labour leaders who fail to promise anything noticeably different even if/when they get in office. UNITE says it doesn't share this view, and recognises the need for working people to take action now to defend our livelihoods.
Within UNITE there have been some excellent debates since the TUC passed a motion about consulting unions about the practicalities of a general strike. UNITE's response to the TUC on this has been amongst the better ones. This was discussed in some detail at last week's UNITE Executive Council and Len McCluskey spoke at length about it when he spoke at an electioneering meeting in Manchester on Monday night.
In the debates within UNITE, most people recognise that large scale coordinated strike action will be needed if members are going to successfully resist cuts and austerity. But there are big debates about how we can achieve this. Some argue that we need to focus on "raising the consciousness" of members first. Others, including myself, have argued that taking action goes hand in hand with building organisation, confidence and consciousness, rather than the action coming afterwards.
The debate is reflected in the current contest for UNITE General Secretary. Len McCluskey makes excellent general speeches about the need for action, but the current leadership has done little to deliver it in the here and now. At last week's Executive Council meeting I was the only person to raise the issue of solidarity with the PCS strike. At Len's campaign meeting on Monday the strike wasn't mentioned at all. Jerry Hicks' campaign has focussed strongly on the need to close the gap between fine words about action at some unspecified point in the future and deeds in the here and now.
In the context of these important debates, it was great to see over 100 UNITE members at the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) on strike today, deliberately choosing to coordinate their strike with the national PCS action. On their picket line in Manchester this morning the UNITE members were very clear about the fact that coordinated action had to start somewhere and their desire to see it spread.
When PCS, NUT and NASUWT are planning large scale action, every member of UNITE and other unions has a responsibility to seek every opportunity to coordinate action to maximum effect.
Yesterday Jerry Hicks received confirmation from Electoral Reform that he had 56 valid nominations - enough to get on the ballot paper and give 1.5 million UNITE members a chance to vote - a real election rather than a coronation.
There are still two weeks left for more nomination meetings (which must be held by 15 February 2013), so keep them coming in. I explained why and how to nominate in a previous post.
The election gives an opportunity to put to all UNITE's members arguments for a more serious fightback - turning fine words into real action, for a more robust relationship with Labour, and for greater accountability of officers to the members they represent.
Jerry's press release responding to the PCS NEC's decision to ballot their members for action in March shows clearly how his election campaign can help increase the pressure for action against cuts and austerity.
Whatever the eventual result of the election (and this snap election remains tilted towards Len McCluskey), the bigger the campaign and vote for Jerry, the more UNITE's leadership (whoever that is) will take on parts of Jerry's agenda and the more UNITE's membership will feel confident to keep pushing for it. This effect will be felt far beyond UNITE too - in other unions General Secretaries and activists alike will be watching the size of the left challenge to a left General Secretary and it is bound to affect their confidence and trajectory too - all helping to build the fightback.
If you are holding a nomination meeting, don't forget to take a collection for Jerry's campaign. He's been blacklisted and out of work since being sacked for union activities, and is up against someone on a six-figure salary. No union funds can be used for the campaign. If you're leafleting etc outside workplaces, don't forget to take along UNITE membership forms to recruit any non-members you meet.
While UNITE has had a policy of opposing all cuts since May 2011, which pledges support for councillors who do oppose cuts, the union has, until now, not done much to encourage Labour councillors to act on that policy. Indeed, the silence has been deafening on the odd occasions when councillors have refused to vote for cuts and have duly been disciplined by Labour.
The signature comes in the wake of bit protests in Manchester against the lastest round of cuts, and councillors starting to consider opposing them for the first time. A Councillors Against Cuts web site has appeared with increasing numbers pledging to vote against cuts. This is a development to be encouraged.
In general, things have got better in UNITE since Len McCluskey took over as General Secretary. So why am I backing the challenger Jerry Hicks in the current election?
Jerry generally supports the positive things Len has done in office. This isn't an election where we have fairly openly right-wing candidates threatening to undo the progress that's been made. This is a choice between Len and Jerry, whose policies are effectively "Len Plus".
Austerity
The central issue facing UNITE members is austerity whether you work in the public or private sector or are a retired or unemployed member. Job security, downward pressure on pay, pensions and terms and conditions, cuts to services and the welfare state - these are the central issues affecting members.
UNITE has some good policies (like this) and Len has made some outstanding speeches. But there has been a big gap between words and the action we need to win.
In 2011 we developed a strategy that involved using the public sector pensions fight as an opportunity to take mass industrial action over one aspect of austerity, and using that critical mass to help pull in action from other areas and over other issues. We saw the TUC demonstration on 26th March, the action taken by other unions (though sadly not UNITE public sector workers) on 30th June and then the colossal strike on 30th November 2011 which included action by UNITE members in health, local authorities and MOD / government departments.
On 30th November I spoke to hundreds of people. Only one thought that one day of strike action would be enough to win. Overwhelmingly people wanted and expected further action to increase the pressure on the government. On 7th December UNITE's Executive Council agreed an excellent statement on the next steps which said "The key to winning is to quickly and significantly escalate the action as early as possible in the New Year", supported a "national march in defence of our NHS in the New Year" and called "on all unions to stand together in opposition to government attempts to divide unions and offer terms of settlement to some while continuing the attack on others". None of this was delivered by UNITE's leadership:
Even when National Industrial Sector Committees (NISCs) supported further action, none was called. Had this taken place during the period before other unions such as UNISON had balloted their members on the deals their leadership were recommending, action could have given confidence to their members to reject the deals.
In December 2011, while refusing to sign in health and MOD / government departments, UNITE initially signed up to the "Heads of Agreement" in Local Authorities, though it later retracted its signature in response to government backsliding. We didn't even avoid division between sectors within UNITE, never mind between unions.
The government pushed through the Health and Social Care Act, a massive threat to our NHS, with no serious industrial opposition and no major national demonstration.
Similar stories could be told about other campaigns and disputes, including in the private sector, where instead of all officers fighting to implement UNITE policy and give members the confidence to fight back, many have sat on the fence or worse.
Words are not enough, we need a General Secretary who will fight hard to turn them into action and deal swiftly with any officers who stand in the way of that.
Confidence and Leadership
If workplace organisation was universally solid and members were confident to stand up for their rights, the quesion of who leads our union would be less important. Members would do what needed to be done whether the General Secretary liked it or not.
But we don't start from where we wish we were. We start from where we are. Major defeats for the unions in the 1980s dented the confidence of a generation who now dominate the leadership of our union. The low level of industrial action since then has meant fewer new activists coming through and deprives them of the experiences that might build their skills and confidence.
We are in a situation where working class people face huge issues and threats from employers and the government, but often lack the confidence to fight back. In this situation the role of leadership assumes an exaggerated importance. When Len spoke at the TUC Congress in September 2011 and announced the intention to strike on 30 November, he gave members confidence which was rewarded with big majorities in the strike ballot and good participation on the day. When the General Secretary gives a clear lead, the members respond. We need this, but day in day out instead of intermittently. When members take action, they gain in confidence, the union gets stronger - and members often win a better outcome than if they'd done nothing. When UNITE fights back, non-members join us.
The same issues apply in the private sector too. The most important dispute of 2012 was the fight by sparks (electricians) against a massive cut to their income through a new package called BESNA which was being pushed by some of the biggest companies in the sector, such as Balfour Beatty.
The construction industry is not an easy place to organise - subcontracting, agency labour, temporary workplaces with a changing workforce and blacklisting are all major issues. When the BESNA attack was launched, the response from UNITE officials was poor. Sparks report being told that they should wait until the end of the 90 days when the new contracts would come in before campaigning, or that they had to "build an army first" before taking any action. Fortunately, many of them didn't listen. The rank and file got organised themselves and started holding protests and recruiting into the union. For this they were described as a "cancer" by a UNITE officer.
Under previous General Secretaries, that might have been the end of the story. To his credit, once the rank and file campaign was gathering steam, Len did come on board and give it support. A combination of rank and file action and (eventually) an official strike call in one of the companies led to the collapse of BESNA - a major victory.
So how does the record of the two candidates compare in this key dispute? Len got on board and deserves credit for that. Jerry was involved from the start, elected onto the rank and file committee and got stuck in to build up the campaign when it needed it most. If you've not seen Jerry speak, take a look at this video from a sparks' meeting in Manchester I attended to give support:
Jerry has proved, from his activity in his workplace over 30 years (he was unlawfully sacked in 2005 following successful unofficial action in his workplace which prevented the dismissal of two colleagues, through to his role in the sparks dispute, that he's prepared to lead from the front when necessary, even putting his job on the line for members.
There are so many things that could be done to raise the confidence of members. When members are fighting back, why don't we tour them round the country, raising support and solidarity, and using them to inspire others? When any group of members are fighting back, it should feel like they really do have 1.5m members behind them. We could do the same internationally too - wouldn't Area Activists meetings be livened up by speakers from Egypt or Greece? Solidarity strengthens those who give it as much as those who receive.
The Labour Party
Len is often highly critical of today's Labour Party, and has done more than any previous General Secretary to try to shift it closer to UNITE's agenda. He talks about wanting to "reclaim" Labour.
Once again, there is a gap between words and actions. Len often talks about giving no blank cheques to Labour. Jerry points out that the cheques haven't been blank, with over £3m a year going to the Labour Party from our political fund as affiliation fees alone.
Contrary to many public statements previously made by Len, money beyond affiliation fees IS going to Labour despite their policies still being so atrocious, for example via Constituency Development Plans.
It was very telling that Len vigorously opposed Composite 16 at the UNITE Policy Conference (which included motion 81 from the IT & Communications National Industrial Sector Committee). In summary, this called for:
greater transparency of political fund expenditure
at least 10% of the political fund to be spent on campaigning for trade union freedoms until the Labour Party does
at least 10% of the political fund to be paid into our Dispute Fund until Labour's leaders support our members taking industrial action against austerity and in defence of public services
In reality, unions concentrate their political fund spending in the period before elections. UNITE is simply building up the fund, retaining the option of using it all to back Labour at the 2015 election. In this context that Len's justification for holding a snap General Secretary election now looks very shaky indeed. He argues that it would be bad for UNITE to hold a General Secretary election around the same time as a General Election. If re-elected now, Len would have the option (as a GS not standing for re-election) of making large contributions to Labour before the 2015 General Election, irrespective of whether Milliband has changed his spots, without the pressure of a General Secretary election to act as any brake.
Len's opposition to the Composite will also make it harder for us to win support from members in the ballot to retain our Political Fund, which is due to start in April. Win this we must, as without it UNITE's freedom to campaign on issues deemed by the courts to be "political" would be severely curtailed - we would be campaigning with one hand tied behind our backs. But tying the use of the fund so narrowly to Labour makes it much harder to persuade activists that they should vote YES in the ballot and continue to contribute to the fund even if they disagree with how it is currently used.
Accountability of Officers
While many officers work hard and do their best for members, is it uncontroversial to state that their ability and dedication varies considerably. Len is working on a set of "standards" for officers and the introduction of a new Capability procedure, and these are positive steps, though they encourage accountability "up" through the UNITE employment structure rather than "down" to the members.
Irrespective of the personal integrity, politics, expertise and dedication of officers, they occupy a distinct social position which is different to that of members or of reps / stewards. They spend their time negotiating to secure agreements between workers and employers. They are neither, and are to some extent insulated from the pressures facing members in the workplaces. Sidney and Beatrice Webb (no redicals) described in the late 19th century "a shifting of leadership in the trade union world from the casual
enthusiast and irresponsible agitator to a class of permanent salaried
officers expressly chosen from out of the rank and file unionists for
their superior business capacity".
The effect of this historically is that whenever workers put up serious resistance to their employers or the government, tensions develop between union full-time officers and rank-and-file members. When all is quiet full-time officers are often to the "left" of most members and more militant, but members often leapfrog past them when actively involved.
All this makes it really important that the members are as far as possible in control of their union, with the maximum possible democracy, participation and accountability at all times. But even this has its limits, and at high points of struggle rank and file members have often found they need to organise independently of the officials and official structures in order to win, as with the sparks recently. The Clyde Workers Committee in 1915 articulated a stance adopted by many rank and file groups since "We will support the officials just as long as they rightly represent the
workers, but we will act independently immediately they misrepresent
them".
Jerry stands for election of officers, rather than the current system where they are appointed by a panel of Executive Council members. Not only does this provide a simple mechanism for removing any officers who are lazy or incompetent, it also helps accountability "down" to the members the officer is acting on behalf of rather than "up" to the General Secretary or Executive Council. And Jerry's deeds match his words on this issue too - in 2003 Jerry turned down a job with the union because it was appointed rather than elected.
Jerry also understands how union leaders living on six-figure salaries causes us problems. Not only is it an easy target for the right-wing press to suggest hypocrisy, not only should this not be our priority for spending members' money, but it also adds to the gap in viewpoint and experience between those at the top and the members they represent. Jerry wants "a General Secretary to live the life of the members they represent, on an average member’s wage not a six figure salary".
The UNITE Rules Conference passed an amendment (which I drafted) and which added what is now rule 14.8.5 in our rulebook. It gives the Executive Council the responsibility to "Determine one or more constitutional committees of lay members to which each officer employed by the Union shall report and be accountable and ensure that the list of these allocations is available to members". I have chased this repeatedly, but it is still not properly implemented.
Part of the problem is the allocation of full time officers to workplaces. In many cases officers have allocations that have little industrial or geographical logic. Many workplaces have frequent changes to their officer allocation. All this makes it hard for the officers to build up expertise and working relationships. It makes it hard to make the officers accountable to the members. Many of the lay committees in the union aren't functioning well. Little wonder if the work those committees are supposed to plan, oversee and carry out involves large numbers of officers who have no relationship with the committee and never report to it.
Election or Coronation?
Even if I believed that calling a General Secretary election early was justified, organising it in this way is a disgrace. It is clearly intended to give an unfair advantage to one candidate. It is an unprincipled maneouvre intended to extend Len's term of office.
At the September 2012 EC meeting, the administration proposed a couple of rule changes. Firstly to remove the age 65 restriction on General Secretaries (which I supported - we can't have age discrimination), and secondly to double the number of nominations required for candidates (which I successfully opposed). In hindsight, I find it very hard to believe that the idea of Len calling an election wasn't a consideration at this time.
The election was announced just before Xmas, with nominations opening on 1 January. Normally there is plenty of notice of General Secretary elections, so all candidates can seek support and prepare a campaign. Not this time. This snap election was designed to favour the incumbent only. Even the facility for an email to members before voting was removed from the rules, to make it harder for alternative candidates to get their message across.
It's vital that Jerry gets as many nominations as possible, so that this unfair contest is at least a contest where members get to hear the arguments about the way forward for the union.
Objections
Some of the arguments I've heard against Jerry from Len's supporters are outrageous. For example, it is disgraceful to suggest that because Jerry has been out of work (and therefore ineligible for most of UNITE's structures under rule 6) he is a poor candidate. We should be supporting all our members who are out of work, but particularly those who have been sacked and blacklisted for their work on behalf of members.
Some people worry about whether Jerry has the experience to be General Secretary. I think anyone taking on the role would have a lot to learn and would need to rely on the team around them for support. Mark Serwotka of the PCS is widely regarded as one of the best General Secretaries, yet he was doing a low paid job in the civil service when he was elected. Jerry has a lot of experience in the movement, not just his 30 years as a shop steward at Rolls Royce, but also his time on the union executive.
Last time Jerry stood for election, in 2010, many people didn't vote for him because they were afraid of "splitting the vote" and allowing an awful right-winger in. In fact, Jerry got around 53,000 votes, coming second of four candidates, behind Len's 101,000.
Does it matter?
The odds in this election are stacked in Len's favour. But backing Jerry's campaign can make a difference in UNITE irrespective of the eventual result. It is an opportunity to put an argument to a million plus UNITE members about the need for a more serious fight-back, and in the process to put pressure on Len to up his game.
The size of Jerry's vote will also have an impact far beyond UNITE. The bigger the vote the more it will raise the confidence of members in other unions who are impatient with the lack of fight from their own leaders. And the more pressure those leaders will feel too.
Whoever is General Secretary, the key factor in our union is the membership - it's size, organisation, consciousness and confidence. If in the course of the election, members and activists have argued about the way forward for UNITE, have met each other and made links and connections, this is a positive development in itself.
The first step is to ensure Jerry gets enough nominations to appear on the ballot paper. Get stuck in.
1. Candidates need at least 50 nominations to appear on the ballot paper
2.
Nominations are a good way of involving members in a discussion about
the future direction of the union and increasing the turnout in the
election
3. Details of nominations will be printed with the ballot
paper and on the union web site, so the more nominations the more
credible a candidate will seem to voters
4. Members in a workplace or branch are likely to be influenced when voting by a nomination from their own branch or workplace
So the more nominations the better!
Who can nominate, when and how?
Every
branch can make one
nomination. So can every workplace unless they are in a branch just for that workplace (which would be double counting nominations). There are strict rules for the election, so make sure you
follow them carefully. Here’s how:
1) Get your nomination paperwork
Branch
secretaries should have received nomination papers by post. Workplace
Reps need to request nomination papers from their Region. Details of who to contact are included in the letter to reps.
Only Workplace Reps registered on the union database will be able to obtain nomination forms.
2) Call your nomination meeting
Your
nomination meeting must be held in the period 1 January to 15 February 2013 and must be
open to all members in the branch or workplace.
If your branch meeting details are held on the central register on the union web site (log onto www.unitetheunion.org to check this) and you do it at the normal time and place then the rules say you don’t
need to specially notify members of the nomination meeting. However,
it is good practice to make sure members know that the meeting will be
discussing this, so everyone has the opportunity to come along and have
their say.
For all other nominating meetings (workplace meetings,
branch meetings not on the register, changed branch meetings), then you
must give at least seven days notice to members using the notice in
appendix 1 of the guidelines. Keep a copy of the notice of the meeting.
3) In your nomination meeting
The person chairing the meeting should not be the same person as the secretary in the case of a branch meeting, or the same person as the Workplace Representative convening the meeting in the case of a workplace.
Only members entitled to vote (i.e. who were members by 31st January 2013) may participate in the nomination process.
Make
sure you take a note of the number of members in attendance, as you
will need this for the nomination form. The quorum (minimum number of
attendees) for a branch meeting is 5.
As no union resources can
be used to support candidates’ campaigns, it’s a good idea to organise a
collection amongst the members at the nomination meeting. For more
details, see the “campaigning” section below.
4) Filling in the nomination form
You need to include the following information on a branch nomination form:
The nominee’s name: Mr J R Hicks
The nominee’s membership number: 31247909
The date of the branch meeting at which the nomination was made
The Branch Chair’s name and signature
The Branch Chair’s membership number
The Branch Secretary's name and signature
The Branch Secretary's membership number
The numbers of members in attendance
You need to include the following information on a workplace nomination form:
The nominee’s name: Mr J R Hicks
The nominee’s membership number: 31247909
The date of the workplace meeting at which the nomination was made
The workplace Rep’s name and signature
The workplace Rep’s membership number
The name and signature of the person who chaired the workplace meeting
The membership number of the person who chaired the workplace meeting
The number of members in attendance
The forms also ask for the nominee branch name and/or number: Bristol Area Community Branch SW/ 001500
In
order that your nominee can contact you after nomination, it is
important to complete the “Data Protection Authority Permission” section
of the form. 5) Send off your nomination
Double-check
that the nomination form is properly filled in. If you issued a
special notice of the nominating meeting (see 2 above), then keep it in a safe place.
Keep a photocopy of all the nomination paperwork, in case of complaints later.
An pre-paid addressed envelope should be provided with your nomination form. Use it.
Your nomination must be received by the Returning Officer by 12:00 on 22nd February 2013.
The
Returning Officer will acknowledge all nominations, so if you haven’t
heard from him after a reasonable time, get in touch to check what’s
happened: Simon Hearn, Returning Officer, Electoral Reform Services, The
Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London, N8 0NW. Alternatively you
can contact him by email (returningofficer@electoralreform.co.uk). If
you still have problems, please let Jerry know too
(jerryhicks4gs2010@yahoo.co.uk). Campaigning
Union
resources (including membership records) cannot be used for
campaigning. The distribution of campaign material in the workplace or
on notice-boards is allowed.
Nobody should directly mail, e-mail, telephone, text,
or use any other forms of communication to contact members at home in
connection with the election, unless the members have themselves signed
up to receive such communications from a candidate’s campaign.
Donations
are only allowed from individuals. Send donations, payable to
“JerryHicks4GS” to Jerry Hicks, 10 York Road, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6
5QE. There's a collection sheet here and a leaflet here.
If you're leafleting etc outside workplaces, don't forget to take along a few UNITE membership forms for any non-members you meet. More information
The full rules and guidelines for the election are here. There's more information about the election on the UNITE web site here and you can read my page about the election here.
Despite the fact that the result won't be declared until Wednesday's Executive Council meeting, and there being nothing on the union web site, the media are already starting to report the result.
As I understand it, there's no official report from the Independent Scrutineer yet, only a preliminary report.
It currently looks like the result will be:
Len McCluskey, 101,000 votes (42%)
Jerry Hicks, 53,000 votes (22%)
Les Bayliss, 47,000 votes (19%)
Gail Cartmail, 39,000 votes (16%)
If the final result matches this, I think it is a great result for those of us who want to see UNITE as a union vigorously standing up for its members and against the cuts. Len McCluskey, backed by United Left (the broad left grouping in UNITE) would have a decisive win, while the two left candidates, Len & Jerry, would have got over two thirds of the vote between them.
However, the poor turnout (16%) is a worrying sign of the lack of engagement of members with the union.
It is particularly good to see Jerry beating Les Bayliss. A lot of people underestimated the mood of the members and assumed that he would trail behind Les Bayliss, given the backing Les had from the right of the union, the Tory press and Derek Simpson. In fact, Bayliss's disgraceful and well-funded campaign appears to have secured him only a third place with 19% of the vote.
Let's see what the official result is on Wednesday.
Today voting papers are being sent out to all UNITE members for the election for our next General Secretary. An election for the General Secretary of the biggest union in the country would be important at any time. It takes on even greater significance coming when we face the biggest onslaught from government and employers in a lifetime. The winner will have a very significant influence over how our union responds, and the votes cast will be a barometer of the mood of the members.
So what of the candidates?
Gail Cartmail still doesn't seem to have developed a clear position on the future of the union, secured little support in nominations and I believe she stands no chance of winning.
Les Bayliss seems more focussed on winning support from the government, employers and the Tory press than from members. Les stands for a dramatic shift to the right in the union (when the Sun and the Spectator back a candidate as the "moderate" the alarm bells should ring!). He argues for a strategy of avoiding confrontation with government and employers, pursuing "partnership" and seeking to avoid defeat by avoiding conflict. How anyone can believe this is even an option in the current climate is beyond me. He has publicly criticised the conduct of the BA dispute, not for allowing it to drag on without mobilising sufficient pressure to win, but for confronting the union-buster Willie Walsh, and declared the dispute "lost" while negotiations were ongoing. He sees the dispute as damaging the "reputation" of the union. Many feel that an Assistant General Secretary declaring a dispute lost while members are still fighting against victimisation brings the union into disrepute with its own members - surely the first duty of a union officer is to support the members?
Bayliss is the only candidate who has refused to take part in hustings with other candidates, which would allow reps to ask him questions and test his arguments alongside the other candidates. The other three candidates all took part in an excellent hustings at the IT & Comms National Industrial Sector Committee recently, while Bayliss declined.
Bayliss has also alienated many members thanks to the tidal wave of unsolicited email (and some post) that many have been recieving from his campaign. Many believe he has abused access to union membership data.
In this context, I think the bigger question is whether Les Bayliss is fit to keep his current job, rather than whether he'll win the General Secretary election.
Len McCluskey is backed by the United Left, the "broad left" grouping in UNITE. He is backed by Tony Woodley, and broadly stands for a continuation of Woodley's approach. McCluskey won far more nominations than any other candidate, and is generally seen as the favourite to win.
Jerry Hicks is the only candidate who is a lay member of the union, rather than the three Assistant General Secretaries - part of the current leadership team. He's standing on a platform arguing that UNITE needs to change significantly to respond effectively to the current economic and political climate, and that only someone from outside the machine can deliver this. His campaign is run on a shoe-string compared to his rivals, but is clearly striking a chord with many members. His "what I stand for" includes:
Change from a “can’t do” union to a “can do” union; from a campaigning union to a fighting union; from a centralised top-down union to a bottom-up union; from a union afraid of people doing the wrong thing, to a union determined to act; from a climate of fear to a culture of open debate;
Officials to be elected by the members, not appointed;
Officials to be accountable to members through the appropriate lay member committee;
Reps, stewards and branch officers to have access to membership information about the people they represent. Internal politics at the top should no longer be prioritised above effective organising and campaigning on the ground;
A General Secretary on an average member’s wage;
Resources as close to the members as possible. Branches, Area Activist Committees, Regional Councils, Sector Committees and Equality Committees all need resources and authority if they are going to be at the heart of involving members in our campaigning and organising;
Invest in training our activists, the future of our union;
A dedicated unit to support officers, reps and stewards during ballots and disputes;
Mergers if they make us stronger, not just bigger;
Every equality committee to have at least one Executive Council member reporting to them;
Political structures open to every UNITE member who contributes to the political fund, not just a tiny minority;
An end to breaking our own rulebook by under-funding organising. Properly resourced organising, linked in to the union’s structures, to build up our strength and our activist base;
Access to legal advice without slow and bureaucratic procedures
I'll be voting for Jerry.
Whatever the result, it will be best for UNITE if there is the highest possible turnout in the election, so every activist should be encouraging members to vote. Distribution of a candidate's campaign leaflets and posters within the workplace is allowed, but no union resources or data may be used to support a particular candidate.
It's good to see the latest UNITE press release on the BA dispute, which talks about getting together reps from across the membership in BA. Many of us have felt for a long time that Willie Walsh was conducting the dispute as if it was all-out warfare, while the union was only deploying a fraction of its power to defend members.
The press release is in line with the comments made at UNITE's July Executive Council meeting, but from the outside little appears to have happened since to turn the comments into reality.
UNITE is a huge union, and when a group of members are under the cosh from their employer it's important they feel like they've got a million+ others behind them. This feeling doesn't come from rhetoric, but from practical organising, solidarity and support - from messages of support and workplace collections which we can all do, through to widening the action which members beyond BA Cabin Crew need to seriously consider.
Is it a coincidence that this press release has appeared just three days after UNITE General Secretary candidate Jerry Hicks went public calling for a similar approach to the BA dispute?
Whether electoral pressure has contributed to this development or not, it should be welcomed by everyone who doesn't want to see the members and their union smashed at BA.
1. Candidates need at least 50 nominations to appear on the ballot paper 2. Nominations are a good way of involving members in a discussion about the future direction of the union and increasing the turnout in the election 3. Details of nominations will be printed with the ballot paper and on the union web site, so the more nominations the more credible a candidate will seem to voters 4. Members in a workplace or branch are likely to be influenced when voting by a nomination from their own branch or workplace
So the more nominations the better!
Who can nominate, when and how?
Every workplace and every branch (including GPM chapels) can make one nomination. There are strict rules about nominations, so make sure you follow them carefully. Here’s how:
1) Get your nomination paperwork
Branch secretaries should have received nomination papers by post. Workplace Reps need to request nomination papers from their Regional Secretary. If you don’t know your Regional Secretary, you should be able to find their details here: http://www.unitetheunion.com/regions.aspx.
Only Workplace Reps registered on the union database will be able to obtain nomination forms.
If you don’t receive your nomination paper, please contact Simon Hearn, Returning Officer, Electoral Reform Services, The Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London, N8 0NW. Alternatively you can contact him by email (returningofficer@electoralreform.co.uk). If you still have problems, please let Jerry know too (jerryhicks4gs2010@yahoo.co.uk) 2) Call your nomination meeting
Your nomination meeting must be held during July or August 2010 and must be open to all members in the branch, chapel or workplace.
If your branch meeting details are held on the central register on the union web site (http://www.unitetheunion.com/pdf/004-Branch%20meeting%20details%20held%20by%20the%20Union%27s%20administration-v2.pdf) and you do it at the normal time and place then the rules say you don’t need to specially notify members of the nomination meeting. However, it is good practice to make sure members know that the meeting will be discussing this, so everyone has the opportunity to come along and have their say.
For all other nominating meetings (workplace meetings, branch meetings not on the register, changed branch meetings), then you must give at least seven days notice to members using the notice in appendix 1 of the guidelines.
3) In your nomination meeting
Make sure you take a note of the number of members in attendance, as you will need this for the nomination form. The quorum (minimum number of attendees) for a branch meeting is 5.
As no union resources can be used to support candidates’ campaigns, it’s a good idea to organise a collection amongst the members at the nomination meeting. For more details, see the “campaigning” section below.
4) Filling in the nomination form
You need to include the following information on a branch or chapel nomination form:
The nominee’s name: Mr J R Hicks
The nominee’s membership number: 31247909
The date of the branch or chapel meeting at which the nomination was made
The Branch Chair/chapel officer’s name and signature
The Branch Chair/chapel officer’s membership number
The Branch Secretary name and signature
The Branch Secretary membership number
The numbers of members in attendance
You need to include the following information on a workplace nomination form:
The nominee’s name: Mr J R Hicks
The nominee’s membership number: 31247909
The date of the workplace meeting at which the nomination was made
The workplace Rep’s name and signature
The workplace Rep’s membership number
The name and signature of the person who chaired the workplace meeting
The membership number of the person who chaired the workplace meeting
The number of members in attendance
In order that your nominee can contact you after nomination, it is important to complete the “Data Protection Authority Permission” section of the form. 5) Send off your nomination
Double-check that the nomination form is properly filled in. If you issued a special notice of the nominating meeting (see 2 above), then you must attach that to your nomination form.
Keep a photocopy of all the nomination paperwork, in case of complaints later.
An pre-paid addressed envelope should be provided with your nomination form. Use it.
Your nomination must be received by the Returning Officer by 12:00 on 6th September 2010.
The Returning Officer will acknowledge all nominations, so if you haven’t heard from him after a reasonable time, get in touch to check what’s happened: Simon Hearn, Returning Officer, Electoral Reform Services, The Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London, N8 0NW. Alternatively you can contact him by email (returningofficer@electoralreform.co.uk). If you still have problems, please let Jerry know too (jerryhicks4gs2010@yahoo.co.uk). Campaigning
Jerry posts information on his web site: http://jerryhicks.wordpress.com/. Contact Jerry on 07817 827 912 or jerryhick4gs2010@yahoo.co.uk for leaflets, stickers etc.
Union resources (including membership records) cannot be used for campaigning. The distribution of campaign material in the workplace or on notice-boards is allowed. If union bodies produce their own materials in support of a candidate, they must not use the union’s logo or corporate identity.
Apart from one communication that will be centrally issued, nobody should directly mail, e-mail, telephone, text, or use any other forms of communication to contact members at home in connection with the election, unless the members have themselves signed up to receive such communications from a candidate’s campaign.
Donations are only allowed from individuals. Send donations, payable to “JerryHicks4GS” to Jerry Hicks, 10 York Road, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5QE. More information
This week (from 1 July) UNITE branches and workplaces can start to meet to decide who to nominate for the election for UNITE General Secretary.
This is clearly a very important election for members, because the General Secretary has a very significant influence over what sort of union we will have. The result is also important well beyond our ranks, because UNITE is such a significant organisation in Britain and Ireland - we are already seeing the media seeking to influence the process by carrying articles of widely varying accuracy.
The winner of the election will take office as "General Secretary Designate" when Derek Simpson retires in December 2010. They will then work alongside Tony Woodley, the remaining Joint General Secretary, until he retires in December 2011, at which point they become the sole UNITE General Secretary.
While opinion may be divided about the future direction of UNITE and who should lead it, most activists feel that a single General Secretary can't come soon enough.
The Executive Council (EC) held a special meeting on 18th June to agree the arrangements for the election. This was called at short notice and I was on holiday so unable to attend. However, the output of the meeting is captured in the revised timetable, rules and guidelines for the ballot which are published on the union's web site, which now has a dedicated section for the GS election. It is well worth every activist reading this material, so that they are clear what they need to do (and what they must not do). The arrangements are different to anything in either the former Amicus or TGWU.
Every branch and workplace is entitled to make a nomination, and I would encourage all to do so. This is a good way of engaging members in the election process and increasing turnout. As the nominating bodies will be published on the web site and printed with the ballot paper, nominations will also have a wider influence on the result.
The field of known candidates has now narrowed to four, with the withdrawal of Paul Reuter and Simon Dubbins. The four are:
Jerry Hicks (jerryhicks.wordpress.com), a former convenor from Rolls Royce Bristol who was victimised for leading successful unofficial action in defence of a member, and who came second in the last Amicus JGS election
Len McCluskey (www.unite4len.com), an Assistant General Secretary, backed by the United Left and by Tony Woodley
Les Bayliss (www.les4gs.org), an Assistant General Secretary, backed by the right-wing "Workers Uniting" group and by Derek Simpson
I am encouraging nominations for Jerry Hicks. To do this you need his name (Mr J R Hicks) and membership number (31247909).
Branches should receive nomination forms by post. Reps will need to request a form from their Regional Secretary, but note that it is one nomination per workplace, not per rep (as it was in Amicus).
Jerry's campaign inevitably lacks the polish and professionalism available to the Assistant General Secretaries who are standing, but the very fact that he doesn't hold high office means his campaign can raise important issues in ways that the others won't. It's quite clear that the courts are making more and more absurd judgements to tighten up the anti-union laws and thwart the democratic decisions of our members. The CBI is even lobbying the Con-Dem government for new and worse legislation. Groups of members are increasingly finding themselves in the position where they can only defend their legitimate interests by taking action in defiance of the anti-union laws. Historically, this has been the main way that such unjust laws have been overturned, rather than by just lobbying government. Jerry has been there and (literally) has the t-shirt. Of course that's not to say that every group of members either needs to or wants to defy the anti-union laws - but how the union raises the confidence of members and supports them is an increasingly important question.
We face the biggest economic crisis in most of our lifetimes, and governments and employers clearly intend to try to make working people pay for a crisis triggered by the greed and irresponsibility of the rich and powerful. Given that most members would feel that the union hasn't been effective enough in protecting and advancing their interests in the recent past, it is clear that significant change is required to match up to the period ahead. Jerry, coming from outside the union "establishment", is best placed to do this.
Jerry's commitment to the grass-roots is reflected in his support for officials being elected by the members, rather than appointed from above, and to take a worker's wage rather than the inflated GS package.
So what of the other candidates?
Len McCluskey is a decent left official, with the support of many good activists. There is much to agree with in his material (including the excellent web site), though the content tends to be rather vague, bland and general, probably as a result of the position he already holds and of trying not to put anyone off.
I can't work out from her material what Gail Cartmail actually stands for, though she is clearly aiming to pick up votes by not being in either of the main UNITE factions and as the only female candidate. Her campaign seems more about herself than what she would do for the union and its members.
Les Bayliss seems determined to lose the election by irritating many activists with a steady stream of unwanted "spam" email, as he has somehow obtained their email addresses. The content is also deeply worrying. Les has made comments which have been widely interpreted as a thinly veiled attack on our BA Cabin Crew members, just when they need all our support against a bullying and vindictive employer. He seems to want to resurrect the worst aspects of Amicus - the stifling top-down centralised control, the contempt for some parts of our membership, the half-hearted support for members who decide they need to resist their employer and the prioritisation of support for New Labour over support for members.
Whatever your own views - get involved and get members involved. Whoever wins the election, UNITE will be stronger if more members are actively involved and taking an interest.
