The biggest debate of the day was around local government cuts. An Executive Statement strengthened Unite's policy, but didn't go as far as the motions which fell as a result of it passing.
Composite 1 (Motions 1 & 2): Campaigning Against Privatisation: Carried
Executive Statement 2: Austerity and Local Government Cuts: Carried
Composite 2 (Motions 3, 4, 5): Campaigning Against Local Government Cuts: Fell
Motion 6: Fighting Back Against Austerity: Fell
Composite 3 (Motions 7, 8 + Amendment, 9 + Amendment): Defending the NHS: Carried
Motion 138: Support the Junior Doctors Campaign Against a Pay Cut and Increased Working Hours: Carried
Composite 4 (Motions10 + Amendment, 11, 12, 13): Campaigning for Homes for All: Carried
Composite 5 (Motions 14 & 15): The Failure of Austerity: Carried
Motion 16: Defending our Libraries: Carried
Composite 24 (Motions 100, 102, 103, 104): Campaigning to Defeat TTIP, CETA and TiSA: Carried
Motion 105: Workers Uniting: Carried
Motion 106: BAEM Workers Internationally: Carried
Motion 107: Palestine: Carried
Motion 108: G4S/Palestine: Carried
Motion 109: Support for Syria: Carried
Motion 110: Anti-war in the Middle East: Carried
Motion 111: Solidarity with the Kurdish population and all progressive forces fighting repression in Turkey: Carried
Composite 25 (Motion 113 + As): Latin America: Carried
Motion 112: Columbia: Carried
Motion 114: Bullying, Harassment and Wellbeing at Work: Carried
Motion 115: Shift Working and its impact on our members: Carried
Composite 26 (Motions 117 & 112): Stress: Carried
Motion 118: Fibromyalgia Awareness in Unite and workplaces: Carried
Motion 120: Campaign and ban the use of Helium Balloons and Chinese Lanterns: Lost
Composite 13 (Motions 57 & 58): Ireland - economics and politics: Carried
Motion 121: Electronic Cigarettes: Remitted
Composite 27 (Motions 123 + As, 124, 125, 126): Mental Health: Carried
Motion 127: Food Standards / Hygiene Issues: Carried
For years the government has been slashing at the NHS, cutting and privatising to boost the profits of the private health vultures (many of whom have unsavoury links to MPs and other decision makers).
Now Cameron and Hunt have decided to take on both junior doctors and student nurses.
The proposed changes to out of hours arrangements for junior doctors wouldn't just mean a pay cut for many, but remove financialy penalties for trusts who jeopardise safety by making them work excessive hours. The proposals have been branded #notsafenotfair. After an impressive strike vote it was great to see so many out on the picket line for the first time this morning.
Meanwhile the government plans to remove bursaries from student nurses, replacing them with student loans. This system is bad enough for any course, but student nurses actually work full time for a large amount of their training. This would mean them actually paying to work.
The striking thing about the situation is how the government is managing to unite health workers. The idea that weekends could run a weekday service without extra resources is ludicrous. And other health workers know that if the Tories beat the junior doctors, they are bound to attack their terms next because junior doctors can't provide a weekday service without all the other hospital departments and functions.
It's worth remembering that "number 10" described Cameron's assault on junior doctors as his "miners' strike". The whole working class paid the price for years for the defeat of the miners. We cannot afford any repeat, least of all when our NHS is at stake. Health workers deserve maximum support and solidarity.
It's a crime that health workers have to strike at all. Before solidarity strikes were outlawed (and unions obeyed these laws) other workers sometimes struck "on behalf of" health workers so that they could continue their vital work. As the Tories push through their Trade Union Bill and try to outlaw most trade unionism, will this kind of action be back on the cards again if workers feel there is no point trying to comply?
This is the appeal from the BMA:
A CALL FROM THE BMA - TO OUR FELLOW WORKERS, TRADE UNIONISTS
AND ACTIVISTS: WE NEED YOU!
The
current situation:
Junior
Doctors across England will be commencing industrial action on Tuesday 12th January. We are opposing this
government’s attempt to impose an unsafe new contract on the medical
profession. It is our view that the proposed contract represents an existential
danger to the NHS as an institution.
You may be
aware that the BMA had initially suspended its planned industrial action at the
start of December and returned to talks with the Department of Health. That
decision was made in good faith. However, over the last few weeks, in the
course of negotiations with Government we have encountered only intransigence.
It is clear that the government perceives our contract issue as
pivotal for its attempt to “reform” the NHS towards a neoliberal,
commercialised system.
It is
therefore evident to us that we have no choice but to transform our 98% ballot
mandate into action.
The
developments of the next few months will have consequences stretching far into
the future. This government is wilfully putting at risk our patients' safety,
the tolerability of our working lives as NHS workers and the very viability of
the NHS as a publicly-funded, publicly-provided service.
Why we
need YOU
The coming
period will be the ultimate test of the BMA’s resolve as a Union. However, we
remain mindful of the fact that the BMA is not an abstract entity operating in
isolation from wider political developments. There is no way that we can win
this on our own. We need all concerned citizens, activists and trade unionists
to stand alongside us in this fight.
Over the
last few months we have been in dialogue with many trade unionists throughout
the country and we have been enormously grateful for their support both at a
local and national level. The public messages of support from our allied health
worker colleagues, the firefighters, the teaching unions and the TUC and TUCG
unions have galvanised junior doctors.
We are
therefore well aware that all eyes are upon us and that the institutions which
represent the wider working class stand with us in solidarity.
We are in
no doubt that Osborne, Cameron and Hunt will use the proposed doctor’s contract
as a tool for achieving the destruction of safe terms and conditions throughout
the NHS and throughout the public sector. The Conservative Party is attempting
to stretch the NHS into an ostensibly 7-day elective service whilst
simultaneously launching the biggest assault on NHS resources in its history.
The politics of austerity represents a clear and present danger to the nation’s
health.
A victory
for the Junior Doctors would signify the first real crack in the entire edifice
of austerity in the UK.
Please
stand with us. And when you need us, ask us. We will stand by you.
Invitation
to attend our pickets
On behalf
of the entire BMA we thank you all for your incredible support so far. Many of
you will have seen the details with regards to the planned action and I will
reiterate them below. We invite you to come out and display your visible
support for us on the days of action.
·The action will begin with an emergency care-only model, which
would see junior doctors provide the same level of service that happens in
their given specialty, hospital or GP practice on Christmas Day. It will then
escalate to full walk-outs. The action as proposed is:
Emergency care only — 24 hrs from 8am Tuesday 12 January to
8am Wednesday 13 January
Emergency care only — 48 hrs from 8am Tuesday 26th January to
8am Thursday 28January
Full withdrawal of labour — from
8am to 5pm Wednesday 10th February
·The aim is to picket all major hospitals in England on all three
days of proposed action. Pickets will be in the vicinity of the main entrances
and will start at 8am, continuing until at least 12.30pm. However, many picket
sites will continue into the evening, especially at the larger hospitals.
·Along with the pickets there will be parallel “Meet the Doctors”
events at nearby transport stops or public spaces. We will direct you to these
events from the picket.
·Please turn up on the days of action, and give us your support. We
will then inform you if other local events are planned on the day. If you are
an allied health worker, trade unionist or campaigner please do consider
bringing along the banner representing your organisation, your working uniform
or similar. We would appreciate it however if banners in explicit endorsement
of specific political parties are not displayed and that any selling of
campaign literature such as newspapers is relatively discreet.
·On the days of action, please do debate us, educate us and invite
us to address your colleagues in your workplace or trade union branch.
Finally
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you of
another important upcoming date. On Saturday 9th January
student nurses, midwives and allied health workers will be marching in
opposition to Government plans to scrap the NHS student bursary. The protest
will assemble outside St Thomas’s hospital at midday and proceed to Downing St.
The BMA will be marching alongside the nursing students and we hope to see you
there!
Just as the social democratic consensus in this country began with the
inception of the NHS in 1948 so too will the NHS be the site of Britain’s last
stand against the all-consuming forces of austerity.
Solidarity is the antidote to the cynicism of those in power. Now
is the time to stand together in a common defence of the NHS. If not now, when?
Kind regards
Dr Yannis Gourtsoyannis, Member of
BMA Junior Doctors Committee National Executive.
The TUC has called a national demonstration for Saturday 18th October which will become a focal point for everyone who wants to protest against cuts, austerity and the erosion of our standard of living. It will be given a greater edge by the talk of public sector strikes on Tuesday 14th October. In addition to local government workers who plan to strike, the ballots in health mean we could see mass action by health workers highlighting the attacks on the NHS too. Will other public sector workers and those in the private sector who have disputes manage to coordinate their action too?
UNITE has booked some transport for 18th October from around the country. This is likely to fill up quickly, so book your place now. This will also help ensure there's time to put on extra transport - it can be hard to find available coaches at the last minute.
The Tories are in Manchester for their conference on 29th September. UNITE, the TUC, other unions and campaigns are organising a national demonstration in defence of the NHS and against austerity. Everyone should throw themselves into building this - a big demo can boost confidence to take the action we will need to stop the Tories and their Lib Dem props.
The TUC information about the demo is here: www.nhs299.org.
The UNITE information about the demo (including transport details from round the country) is here: www.unitetheunion.org/saveournhs.
UNITE has produced a video explaining some of the issues around the cuts and privatisation of the NHS to encourage people to come on the demo:
Last weekend I joined thousands of other activists at the People's Assembly in London.
The huge turnout will have boosted the confidence of attendees to go out and build local assemblies round the country. Everyone should get involved in this and try to ensure they get really active.
While the declaration agreed wasn't quite as practical as it could have been, it does identify some key dates that people can organise around.
A highlight for me was the tremendous speech by UNITE health activist Gill George, pulling no punches against the Tories or anyone who stands in the way of a successful fight against them.
The Tories and their Lib-Dem props are ripping the NHS to shreds with cuts, reorganisation and privatisation - actions that were in no manifesto and nobody voted for. Many of those who backed the changes in parliament have links to private healthcare that wants to profit from ill health.
It's a crime that there was no national demo when the Health & Social Care Bill was going through parliament, but the huge local protests around the country show that people are prepared to come out and defend the NHS.
Now UNITE, along with UNISON and GMB are building a national protest to Save the NHS on 29th September in Manchester, when the Tories are holding their conference.
Everyone should be there. The UNITE web site now has a page where you can sign-up to pledge to join the march on 29th September. UNITE should be organising trains and coaches from round the country - there is no time to lose.
If you're in a well-organised workplace you should be building a large delegation for the march. If you're in a less organised workplace, what better opportunity to get people involved - many non-members will support this campaign too.
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.
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.
I posted yesterday about the threat Kevin Bennett was facing of disciplinary action by Labour for voting against the cuts. Today was his hearing - and the protest outside it at Warrington town hall.
I was very pleased to see a highly visible presence on the protest from UNITE, including officers and organisers, Executive Council members and members of the Regional Political Committee. UNITE has long standing policy of supporting councillors who vote against cuts, but this is the first public sign I've seen of beginning to implement it.
Kevin was among a number of speakers who addressed the crowd:
If we're serious about opposing the cuts to services and jobs, I think UNITE needs to move from a relatively passive policy of supporting councillors whether they vote for or against cuts, to actively asking councillors to vote against them, which would help increase the numbers and make it harder for them to be picked off. UNITE should also make clear that we will continue to support councillors expelled from Labour for opposing cuts - including if they stand for re-election.
Another councillor faces disciplinary action by the Labour Party this week - for opposing the cuts.
Kevin Bennett is a councillor in Fairfield and Howley in Warrington, and is a former member of UNITE's Executive Council. He defied the Labour whip and voted against the cuts at a meeting in early March.
Kevin has explained his views clearly:
"We need to send a strong message of defiance to this idealistic, uncaring Tory led coalition government and show the people of Warrington that we have got the guts to stand up to them.
"I expressed my views on what I believe to be the views of many people, on having to implement cuts which are not of our making. It is wrong that we should be in the firing line when all of this is a result of vicious funding cuts by this Tory led coalition government.
"This council could safeguard jobs and services for the next 12 months by using reserves and borrowing. This would buy time to build a fight-back against this Tory led coalition government. The Labour council's Executive Members and Portfolio holders are refusing to even consider this option.
"There is a definite correlation between the worst cuts and deprivation and I see it in my ward. There must be NO compulsory redundancies within the council workforce, and we must fight to keep our services 'in house'. Once they're gone they're gone and probably won't save us money."
There's a protest in support of Kevin at Warrington town hall 6-6:30pm, Thursday 4th April. The town hall is on Sankey Street (WA1 1SR), a few minutes from Warrington Bank Quay station. Go along and let the Labour group know that disciplinary action against Kevin would be intolerable.
