GPM&IT NISC June 2018

This is my personal report, not an official one. It omits most of the industrial business, as this is often confidential. Other than that, if you are aware of any errors please let me know.

This was the first meeting of the new National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) elected by the Regional Industrial Sector Committees (RISCs) for the 2018-20 term of office.

1. Steve Garroway was re-elected as chair.
2. It was agreed that as there were a number of new delegates, the election of deputy chair would be postponed until the next meeting, and for now Charlie Shieber would continue as deputy.
3. A number of corrections were agreed to the previous minutes
4. There is now a template for NISC minutes with an action plan as a spreadsheet at the end
5. Louisa Bull, the National Officer, has been working on a charter setting out where we are as a sector, subsectors, key areas of future work etc. The future work will include a full audit / mapping exercise of the sector, identifying membership density, areas of growth, combines, European Works Councils and experts etc. One of the aims will be to use the Work Voice Pay data to identify projects we want to do and extend collective bargaining, enhance subsectors and combines.
6. A draft of a booklet on apprenticeships was circulated for comments by 1 July.
7. The NISC's Organising Strategy Subcommittee was elected: Charlie Shieber, Gareth Lowe, Ronan Turley, Ian Allinson, Steve Garroway, Claire Lees
8. The joiners and leavers data provided to NISC members had gone from too much detail, not showing trends and changes, to not enough detail to be useful. Louisa explained that things like this were in flux following the GDPR data protection legislation. Louisa will produce a new template and email it out.
9. There was discussion about the fact that there are 170 different officers covering workplaces in the sector, most of them with only a small piece of GPM&IT in their allocation, and how this prevents focus or expertise. There are examples of different officers covering sites belonging to competing companies right near each other.
10. The issue of the Labour Party and even parts of Unite using non-unionised printers was discussed yet again. Louisa reported that she had raised it with Jennie Formby, now the Labour Party General Secretary. Louisa will forward to the NISC an email from Jennie confirming the policy on this set by the Labour NEC. Louisa has asked Regional Officers to produce a list of half a dozen small print shops they would happily recommend. It was agreed that this list should include what types of work the printers can do and that it should be circulated to RISC chairs and branch secretaries and Unite Political Officers as well as the NISC.
11. A team to work on content for the sector's web site and social media profile was elected: Helen Kerr, John Stuttle, Ian Allinson and Jamie Messent. Louisa reported that the web site was being revamped and she ws unable to get it updated. The NISC can still consider what it wants in terms of structure, sector and company pages, toolkits etc ready for when the site is usable again. Unite recommends that all RISC and NISC members have unitetheunion.org email addresses, which can be put up on the web site too.
12. The Unite briefing on the Gender Pay Gap (GPG) had been sent to all reps. A 5-day course covering this in Eastbourne is coming up, with the deadline soon. Delegates felt this was an important issue to raise, recruit around, and use as leverage to tackle the issue, even when there is no pay bargaining or transparency. A tool is being developed to show the GPG for every employer in the sector. There was also discussion about a successful equal pay case and the need to publicise such wins. Louisa will circulate a template grievance questionnaire for discrimination cases developed after the government scrapped the statutory questionnaire.
13. One area for potential growth is into the white collar staff and technical workers in workplaces where there is already shopfloor bargaining. In many workplaces the proportion of shopfloor workers is shrinking.
14. All activists should have received the activist briefing on the new GDPR data protection legislation and the document explaining how to report data breaches. The Executive Council have had training and all branch secretaries and chairs will get training via their regions in the next couple of months. Legal have been invited to do this at the November NISC as well. Some amendments had been made by the EC to the Unite Rulebook in response to GDPR. There was discussion about the fact that some officers and staff are refusing to share information with RISC members on grounds of the GDPR, unless specific consent is obtained each time. I pointed out that the Unite GDPR Guidelines make clear that reps and branch officers can have access to membership information for legitimate union activity and that the officers and staff were breaking rule 18.7 which requires RISC members to be given the identity, constituency and contact details of reps covered by their RISC. A situation where committee members can't even communicate with each other is absurd. Update: this still doesn't seem to have been resolved, with Unite legal advising officers and staff to break union rules on the pretext of GDPR. In the meantime, NISC members agreed to share their contact information with each other, and those absent would be asked to consent to this too. There was a discussion about how to ensure our use of data is GDPR compliant at branch and workplace level, and the risks of communicating or keeping information on employers' systems.
    
15. Barckley Sumner from the Unite Campaigns & Communications department gave a presentation about best practice for media content, producing content, use of photos etc.
16. Gareth Lowe was elected as editor of the GPM&IT quarterly newsletter which goes to all activists in the sector. Each RISC is asked to elect someone to liaise with him, to help ensure a good mix of content from round the UK and Ireland.
17. The NISC discussed ideas for content for the next newsletter, for which the deadline is 31 July. The newsletter will be shorter and more industrially focused, with the hope that activists will circulate copies in workplaces.
18. Work on the idea of piloting the "industrial hub" approach to organising in the corrugated subsector continues. Communication is being improved, and coordination around bargaining. The international union federations (IndustriALL and UNI) can help with research, and AGS Steve Turner has resources for the hubs strategy, which may be helpful as the sector isn't getting resources from the organising department.
19. Work to update the Stratum membership system records for GPM&IT workplaces to include subsector, national agreements, and which bits of workplaces are covered by agreements continues. Some Regional Officers are working on it, and some RISCs. Some NISC members volunteered to help too. Where possible, government codes for subsectors are being used. Louisa has a short description for each subsector which she will circulate. If the population isn't finished, the spreadsheets will be sent to RISCs to complete.
20. Louisa had attended 6 of the Regional Industrial Sector Conferences. She hadn't been invited to one (which clashed with another anyway), two were not quorate, and Wales is still not working. Reps from Wales who wanted to be on the RISC and NISC have been invited to the NISC as observers while this is sorted out. Most of the meetings were good in terms of attendance and participation.
21. Information wasn't cascading from the National Officer through the officers who act as secretaries to the RISCs to all the reps, so Louisa is now sending stuff directly to all officers who cover GPM&IT.
22. Louisa wants the NISC to produce a sector plan, then RISCs to work from that and identify how they can pick up those areas of work in their region, what actions they can take.
23. We hope to get NISC minutes finalised quickly so they can get to RISC members in time for the following RISC meetings. Louisa is emailing the RISC officers to ask them to put the NISC minutes onto their agendas.
24. There was discussion about the latest developments in the ongoing Fujitsu dispute.
25. The Print Futures award has been widened to include paper and packaging.
26. Ronan Turley, Steve Garroway and Claire Lees were elected as 2 delegates and a substitute to the Unite Manufacturing Combine.
27. Delegates were reminded that if they can't attend a NISC meeting, they should ask the RISC to send a substitute.
28. There was discussion about the push to "paperless meetings" in some organisations (e.g. UNI World Congress) and the fact that not everyone has the facilities or skills to engage effectively without printed material. Unite's policy is that individuals should be provided with printed copies of documents for meetings if they prefer that. For the NISC, documents will be emailed out, with printed copies posted to delegates who request it. Printed copies of the agenda, minutes and anything being debated rather than provided for background information will be provided on the day.
29. An emergency motion on Gaza for Policy Conference was agreed.
30. Louisa undertook to provide GPM&IT policy conference delegates with a list so they could communicate with each other.
31. Louisa will circulate a report from an IT delegation to a recent conference in Mumbai.
32. The NISC needs more women and BAEM members to join it, and there was a discussion about how to achieve this. Louisa will go back to the regions who have not sent a proportionate delegation.
33. The EC was asking the NISC to remit its motion on allocation of officers to sectors and it was agreed how this would be handled at conference.
34. The experiment with holding the NISC over one long day had caused problems for a number of shift workers. It was agreed to move back to a meeting split over two days.
35. Jonathan Hayward from the Unite International Department gave an update around European Works Councils (EWCs) and UK Information & Consultation (I&C) bodies. He said the main issue for EWCs at the moment was Brexit, which also has implications for the I&C regulations. The recasting of the EWC directive in 2011 has improved EWC functioning, particularly after Unite did a lot of training for reps and officers. There was still a need to push for more consultation and engagement, EWCs represent an opportunity to hold companies to account, e.g. they had delivered safeguards in the GKN/Melrose takeover battle. The European Commission says that from 29 March 2019 UK employee numbers won't count towards the thresholds for EWCs. Unite is advising reps to push for amendments to agreements now to ensure continued representation post Brexit irrespective of what happens - and has a document with suggested clauses. Employer responses are varying, often based on HQ country.
36. Jonathan explained that the UK government faces a dilemma over EWCs. They have promised that no employment legislation will be diluted by Brexit, at least in the short term. On the other hand they don't want the ECJ to have jurisdiction, so EWCs operating under UK law wouldn't be fully enforceable, even for EU citizens. Unite has proposed that the UK repeals most of the legislation that allows EWCs to be covered by UK legislation, but retain the right of UK employees to participate in EWCs based elsewhere. This would require some agreement with the EU, and EWCs currently based in the UK would have to move. German and French are best, while Irish is worst. Some EWC agreements have clauses saying it is under the law of the country with most employees, but companies usually want to choose. Sometimes the agreement allows the employer to choose from the top three countries by employer number. An update on all this will go in the sector newsletter, and Louisa will send something to our EWC chairs and NISC members.
37. Most companies are making contingency plans for various Brexit scenarios, and EWCs should be part of that debate. EWC reps should raise this now - though you don't always get good news. There is a document with questions you can raise.
38. The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) made a useful recent ruling against Oracle over a failure to consult about a transfer of work. Oracle had held a phone conference with the EWC and then answered some later questions, and claimed that was adequate consultation. The CAC ruled that information and consultation is a process with more than one stage, and that the EWC had been unable to consider the information, discuss it with management and submit an opinion. They also ruled against the blanket confidentiality imposed by Oracle on the grounds that the information might damage the business by upsetting people. Since the wording of the I&C regulations on information and consultation is the same as the EWC regulations, the same arguments can be used there. This is potentially very useful for countering the talking-shop / focus group way of working that some employers favour.
39. NISC members discussed the idea of trying to incorporate the protections in the EU Social Chapter into collective agreements now, to retain them even if the Tories worsen the legislation.
40. The Unite materials were (again) criticised for not addressing the rights of non-UK citizens, many of whom are members and feel the union hasnt' focussed on them. My own branch had submitted Motion 13 to Policy Conference and another GPM&IT branch had submitted a supportive amendment. Jonathan explained that the International Department had picked up much of the work around Brexit, but the Equalities department had said they would deal with the issues raised. NISC members felt Unite needed to be more joined up to avoid such problems. Louisa agreed to write to Simon Dubbins (head of international department) to ask for a European migrant workers to have a focus group or their own committee.
41. There will be an update on European Works Councils and Information & Consultation bodies on Friday 5 June.
42. It was agreed to submit a second Emergency Motion to Policy Conference highlighting the demonstration against Trump on 13 July, the Unity demonstration against the far right on 14 July, and the need to do more to stop the FLA/DFLA using football links to build a racist movement.
43. We agreed to mobilise for the NHS demonstration on 30 June
44. The next meeting will be 4-5 October at Moreland Street, London

Tweet

Latest anti-union laws

The government has published new draft documents relating to the Trade Union Act 2016. These include:

• Draft Code of Practice on industrial action ballots and notice to employers (which includes the new ballot thresholds)
• Draft Code of Practice on picketing

These are expected to become law on 1 March 2017.

Tweet

Jeremy Corbyn's speech to Unite Policy Conference

Jeremy Corbyn's speech showed how much his own views align with Unite policies. He got particularly strong applause for his commitments to renationalise the railways and repeal the Trade Union Act. He also talked about the Workplace 2020 discussions about the future of work.

Those planning to stand against Corbyn for Labour leader should note - only a handful of delegates didn't stand and applaud him, and presumably some of those were people who had difficulty standing. This is markedly more enthusiastic than the response to any Labour leader I can remember.

Watch for yourself:

Tweet

Defending Corbyn and Freedom of Movement

Unite's National Industrial Sector Committee (NISC) for my sector (GPM&IT) met this week and agreed to submit the following as emergency motions to the Unite Policy Conference this month.

It is likely that the "leadership" will try to avoid either being passed by putting forward fudgy "Executive Statements". If an Executive Statement is passed, all motions on the same subject fall. Given how long it took to get our union behind Corbyn in the first place, and our General Secretary's recent unhelpful comments about free movement of labour, conference fudge is the last thing we need.

1) Defend Jeremy Corbyn

This conference recognises that the outcome of the UK’s referendum on EU membership has significant economic and political implications at UK, EU and global levels. Now that the decision to leave the EU has been taken, the labour movement urgently needs a positive programme for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland post-EU. This must be based on a break from the neoliberal free-market agendas of both the UK government and the EU, along with a strong platform of workers’ rights, civil rights and equality.

This conference believes that Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is much better placed to provide a positive way forward than the failed New Labour alternatives.

This conference deplores the actions of many Labour MPs in undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and pledges UNITE’s support in the leadership election.

2) No to racism, yes to human rights

This conference is appalled at the racism, xenophobia and hostility to migrants evident from some campaigners on both sides during the EU referendum, and by the increase in racist abuse, harassment and attacks following the result. We note the increased insecurity facing non-UK citizens, including many UNITE members.

This conference believes that scapegoating migrants for austerity, poor housing, jobs and services undermines all our ability to tackle the real causes.

This conference believes that calls for restrictions on freedom of movement for people, and our right to work without discrimination based on nationality, conceded ground to the racist myth that migration, rather than the actions of government and employers, are the causes of the problems that face us. Such calls encourage blaming of migrant workers in the UK and undermine the solidarity we need to tackle our problems.

This conference resolves to:
1. Redouble our opposition to racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia and our solidarity with migrants
2. Oppose calls to restrict free movement of people or the right to work and to defend employment rights and anti-discrimination legislation
3. Campaign to highlight the real causes of poor housing, jobs and services and the part played by migrants and BAEM people in fighting against them

Tweet

Report from GPM&IT NISC April 2016

The committee, which covers the Graphical, Paper, Media & IT industries, met Monday and Tuesday. This is a summary of some key points. I’ve not included most of the industrial detail (and some other points) in my report because not everything is appropriate to post publicly. For jargon, see here.

Organising, Campaigning and Education:

1. Osborne’s National Living Wage (NLW) is basically a rebadged and slightly higher National Minimum Wage at £7.20 an hour for over 25s, not to be confused with the real Living Wage of £8.25 or £9.40 in London for over 18s. The NLW is based on a percentage of median income rather than any measure of the cost of living. Some of the worst employers are trying to fund the NLW by cutting terms and conditions elsewhere or setting excessive workload targets so people have to work more hours than they are paid for. Members at one company are balloting over pay in relation to this. Fujitsu has had some bad press from its FSESL subsidiary in the UK. There were many more examples.
2. Members at Tullis Russell who lost their jobs have won £1.5m compensation. The NISC paid tribute to the work of Paul Reilly, the Unite convenor there, who has not yet found alternative employment.
3. In line with the decision of our sector conference, a report on organising is being sent out to RISCs via their secretaries following each NISC meeting and RISCs are asked to feed back their ideas, experiences, comments and plans, as well as including organising in their reports to the NISC. Verbal reports showed some good activity going on in some regions.
4. The NISC’s organising strategy subcommittee will seek a meeting with Sharon Graham from the organising department.
5. The NISC is keen to get a revised version of the strategic report on the sector produced for the sector conference about four years ago.
6. Unite has created a new Manufacturing Combine bringing together reps from relevant sectors. An initial meeting had explored its remit and goals and set up some work groups. We elected two NISC members to attend on behalf of the GPM&IT sector.
7. I gave a report on the use of Skype to increase participation of members not at sites where face to face members’ meetings were practicable. These have been well received by members and are helping offline organising and the education of members about issues and their rights.
8. Education is under attack generally, from student fees, abolition of EMA, academisation of schools and cuts to adult education. Training for union reps is part of adult education, which has faced cuts of 50% this year. It is anticipated that all funding may be removed from July 2017, which will require major changes to trade union education. While Unite, other unions and organisations work on strategies to respond, workplaces are encouraged to get as many reps through training as possible before funding is removed. As always, there is a push to increase the participation of young members, women and BAEM members.

Health & Safety:

1. International Workers’ Memorial Day is 28^th April 2016. There are Unite posters, stickers etc on the theme “strong laws, strong enforcement, strong unions” available from offices or the web site. The intention is to highlight the threat to health and safety from government cuts and the Trade Union Bill. Other resources are available from the TUC and Hazards.
2. Stress is the biggest health issue facing workplaces, and Unite will be updating its existing guidance.
3. The TUC health and safety and organising guide is now available in PDF and epub formats via https://www.tuc.org.uk/HandSandOrganising
4. Unite is updating its H&S guide, the 2014 version is online. Susan Murray and Bud Hudspith are keen to hear members’ views on what issues should be in the new edition, the most suitable format, and any other comments.

Political:

1. The Lords are still discussing the Trade Union Bill and the situation with amendments should be clearer around the end of next week. Though there may be progress on electronic balloting, the idea of secure workplace balloting, essential to raising turnout and avoiding a “digital divide”.
2. The Tories are carrying out a triple attack to weaken political opposition. The Trade Union Bill aims to slash funding to the Labour Party, boundary changes will disproportionately eliminate Labour-held seats, and changes to voter registration have disenfranchised millions of people – disproportionately young, poor and in insecure housing.
3. Unite is encouraging people to register to vote, and to opt for a postal vote as this delivers a higher turnout.
4. While media attention is on the Euro-referendum campaign there are election for councils, devolved government etc for the entire country on 5 May. Unite is campaigning for a Labour vote. It is likely that Labour will suffer losses as it did very well the last time this set of council seats came up. There is also concern that UKIP will pick up seats so Unite has produced material highlighting that far from being an anti-establishment party they are cosy with big business and in favour of cuts to public services and workers’ rights. EU citizens living in the UK can vote in all the elections taking place on 5 May.
5. There was frustration that many Labour councillors try to keep quiet about the cuts rather than being open about the impact of the Tory cuts they are passing on and campaigning on the issue. Just 15% of local government funding comes from council tax, compared to 60% from central government, and the rest from business rates and service charges.
6. Some Labour MPs continue to try to undermine Corbyn. One effect of the boundary changes is that later in the parliament all constituencies will need to select their candidate for the next General Election, creating an opportunity for constituencies to choose candidates reflecting their priorities.
7. A GPM&IT remit to the Executive Council supporting Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum had been “left on the table” rather than voted on as it was unlikely to have secured majority support due to “concerns” about some of the people involved in Momentum. The NISC agreed to remove the Momentum bullet point from the remit and resubmit it.
8. Unite is campaigning for a “Remain” vote in the EU referendum in June, along with most other unions. NISC members overwhelmingly supported this position, but were not always confident that members in their workplaces did. Unite will run its own campaign based on jobs and workers’ rights, rather than backing any of the wider campaigns. I asked why, given that both main campaigns and the media were stoking up racism against migrants, who form an important part of Unite’s membership, and that equality is supposed to be at the heart of our union’s agenda, we weren’t making defence of migrants a central issue too. Simon Dubbins explained that Unite has produced materials to arm members for such arguments, but while not ducking the issue, it wasn’t seen as “our issue to raise”, though our approach might have to be revised as the campaign unfolded. Further information and campaign materials are available here.

Miscellaneous:

1. Keith Keys from the GPM Charitable Trust asked activists to raise awareness of the help that is available to members, for example with mobility aids, home adaptations and respite or convalescent care.
2. The motions submitted for the Unite Policy Conference 2016 have been circulated to secretaries of branches and constitutional committees, which have until 20 May to submit amendments.
3. It was agreed to have a standing item on NISC agendas to monitor and action progress on implementation of the motions passed at the sector conference, and reports can be provided to RISC members.
4. The issue raised from our sector about the implications of automation and the use of robots for workforces across the economy, is now being considered by the Labour Research Department.
5. Following HMRC input, Unite’s lay member expenses policy has changed, and is likely to change again in the near future. Allowance rates have been changed, and all claims for allowances must be supported by at least some receipted evidence of expenditure.
6. The Welsh RISC is now functional and has elected two delegates to the NISC. There remains an issue to be resolved where the Regional Secretary believes four of those elected to the RISC are not eligible because of the constituency arrangements in Wales.
7. The next NISC meetings will be 30 June – 1 July at Esher; and 13-14 October in London. NISC members who cannot attend a meeting were reminded to submit apologies in good time so that substitute delegates can be invited.

Tweet

Report from UNITE sector conference, November 2015

The conferences were organised over three days, with services sectors on Monday, manufacturing sectors on Tuesday, and transport sectors on Wednesday. The Graphical, Paper, Media & IT (GPM&IT) conference was on Tuesday. This report covers the plenary session on Tuesday morning, where the sectors were together, the GPM&IT conference itself and the immigration fringe meeting in the evening.

Plenary

Len McCluskey described how media coverage of UNITE is through the lense of our relationship with Labour, rather than based on our primary role as an industrial organisation. UNITE was launching a new campaign on the themes "work, voice, pay" to give the union a more coherent industrial focus. He talked about the injustice of the Trade Union Bill. Referring to the debates about Trident, he argued that "above all" the union had to defend jobs and conditions.

Assistant General Secretary for manufacturing Tony Burke gave an update on various issues affecting our sectors and claimed that "we will do what it takes to save our steel industry".

Len gave a very long response to my question about whether UNITE would support deselecting Labour MPs who rebelled to support bombing Syria despite the lessons of the last fifteen years. He said that UNITE's strategy of encouraging members to get involved in the Labour Party and try to select working class MPs continues, and was being successful, having already resulted in some first class MPs being elected. He described how Corbyn had appealed to people sick of the idea that "There Is No Alternative". He thought that there was a learning curve in the Labour Party, as they adjusted to the new situation, and that this included Corbyn himself, who had said some things that were "inappropriate". He was having to get used to being a leader rather than a backbencher free to say what he liked. The Parliamentary Labour Party was on a learning curve too. They had to realise that the vast majority of Labour members had rejected the old style of politics. Len argued that he was not in favour of mandatory annual reselection, but he did support accountability. Some MPs are behaving despicably, and they should give the new leader a chance. John McDonnell is working on an industrial strategy - which would be the first in Britain for 40 years. The Labour conference had recently voted to oppose bombing Syria. Len condemned the Paris attacks, which he described as "fascist", but argued that it was important to keep a calm head. Syria was already being bombed daily. UK bombs would not make the difference. Hundreds or thousands are being kille daily. Some MPs want to vote for war merely to embarrass Corbyn. Len said he personally would vote to deselect them. He saw it as encouraging that young people were more engaged in politics thanks to Corbyn.

In response to a question about the government's attack on funding through FE colleges for education for union reps, Len said that rep training was key, and that the Executive Council's education sub-committee is looking at a strategy with Jim Mowatt.

A delegate from aerospace & shipbuilding asked about the prospects for diversification from Trident, given how the press had reported Len making disparaging comments around Labour Party conference. Len argued that there are tens of thousands of jobs in the defence sector, it would be devastating if they were lost, and it was our job to oppose such devastation. If it was feasible we shoudl engage in debate on diversification to guarantee the same type of jobs and skills. The National Officer, Ian Waddell, is preparing a report highlighting UNITE's own initiatives on diversification. We've never had a government that was interested, which has led to negative and frustrated responses. In 2001 the Labour government scrapped the body looking at diversification, so members in the sector felt nobody was listening. As general secretary, it was his job to defend ALL members' jobs and communities. At the same time we could try to do things differently. There are also issues around climate change, the civil nuclear industry, fracking etc. He would be guided by conference policy. UNITE would talk to anyone about diversification.

In response to a question about the junior doctors' dispute, Len ridiculed the attempts of the right to pretend that it would jeopardise people if there was an incident like the Paris killings. In such circumstances everyone knew where the doctors would be. Of course we should support their fight. UNITE members in the Medical Practitioners Association are involved.

In response to a question about the allegations that some union employees had been involved in blacklisting our own members in construction, Len paid tribute to the work done by our legal department in challenging blacklisting. Employers had now admitted liability and we were pushing for compensation. UNITE is in the lead on the issue. He argued that the allegations, which have been circulating for years, need to be proved - if there was evidence he would act. However, he argued that an internal investigation was impractical.

Len was asked how to respond to companies which wanted to cut costs by moving jobs offshore, threatening good jobs in the UK. He argued that multinational companies have no loyalty and would leave tomorrow if it could make them more money. The pro- free market government sees no issue with this, which is why our political work is important. This kind of thing doesn't happen in Germany. We also had to use our industrial strength. Siemens have an objective of protecting their "core workforce" in Germany, and when they make cuts they move work from the UK to Germany to do that. He asked who is protecting "British workers"? It is better for businesses to have local supply chains, who can fix issues that arise promptly. The UK needs an industrial strategy. He highlighted the case of Ford, for whom the UK is their most profitable market, despite not making a single car here, having moved jobs elsewhere, but they are still allowed access to the UK market. Len was excited to see Corbyn and McDonnell looking at an industrial strategy.

[Comment: I'm getting increasingly concerned about the amount of UNITE material talking about "British workers". Our members come from all over the world and we all need to unite if we are to win. Talk of "British workers" is divisive and weakens us, as it did during the disgraceful period when Derek Simpson followed Gordon Brown in arguing for "British Jobs for British Workers"]

George Hickman, Dave Roseaman, Sheila Rowley and Pasty Turner were elected unopposed to the Standing Orders Committee for 2017. Other elections took place on Monday & Wednesday.

Sharon Graham introduced the outline of the new UNITE industrial strategy, aimed at tackling declining living standards by extending collective bargaining and improving bargaining outcomes. An intensified focus on our core industrial work would also regenerate the union's industrial "brand" against the media representation. UNITE is an industrial organisation, not a political party.

The idea behind the "work, voice, pay" strategy is to establish core themes that are relevant across all sectors. Every worker can understand what UNITE stands for, and we can establish standards for negotating issues. The themes can be expanded and adapted as appropriate, for example:

• Work: secure, permanent jobs, without zero hours contracts. No compulsory redundancies. Apprenticeships. "Rate for the job" to stop undercutting. Safe environment without discrimination.
• Voice: Union voice for non-recognised workers. Extending the scope of bargaining (e.g. agency workers, job security). National and sectoral bargaining that covers everyone, looking beyond individual workplaces. Negotiations on service/product to shape the future.
• Pay: RPI means a falling share when productivity goes up - focus on ability to pay. Life/work balance. Training. Pensions.

UNITE has begun building a database of workplaces showing the anniversary date for pay deals, agreements etc. Preliminary analysis of our pay deals against data from the Office of National Statistics shows 18 out of 20 sectors have a "UNITE premium" on pay. For example, in the GPM&IT sector (SIC codes 18,62,63) Office of National Statistics data shows pay falling by 1.2%, whereas UNITE agreements in the sector averaged a 2.2% increase. The second phase will be to add unorganised workplaces to the database. Sharon wants to know what fields would be useful to add to the database.

The information about the strategy and database will be disseminated and discussed at NISCs and RISCs. Sectors can develop plans for coordinated bargaining including industrial principles and standards, aligning anniversary dates, or targetting particular companies or sub-sectors. "Best in sector" agreements and clauses can be identified". Combines and networks can be established across sites, companies and sectors. Activists will be able to access the database of collective agreements as well as various templates and model agreements.

GPM&IT conference

Tony Burke introduced a new report "A digital new world" which has been produced by some members in the IT & Comms part of the sector along with the research department and Mike Eatwell, an officer in London & Eastern. It includes information about the profile and importance of the industry and discussed future trends and their possible implications for the employment and the whole economy. In due course this should be available on the UNITE web site.

Ian Tonks presented his report, covering developments in firms across the sector.

Richard Wileman was elected as the delegate to the 2016 TUC conference, with Raja Hussain as the substitute.
Aleksandra Tomczak (Ola) was elected as the delegate to the 2017 TUC conference, with Ged Dempsey the substitute.

There were international speakers from the USW in North America and the UNI, the international union federation.

Alan Tate, the head of UNI Global's ICTS (Information & Communication Technology Services) sector explained that packaging and IT are seen as the parts of the sector with most potential. The UNI strategy is to focus on key multinational corporations in the services side of ICTS.

Nicola Konstantinou from UNI Europa Graphical described how they had been organising round European Works Councils, then building trade union alliances for the companies, approaching management for global agreements on basic rights.

Leeann Foster and Alex Perkins from the USW described their efforts to protect members in US papermaking from what they saw as unfair competition. They had been bringing cases under WTO rules about "unfair subsidies" resulting in selling products below fair market value, which they described as "dumping". They are only allowed to bring cases if they have a company's support, and there is no governmental assistance. Multinationals tend to be reluctant to get involved in such issues. They had won some cases against China, Portugal, Brazil, Australia and Indonesia. While the USW is against trade deals such as TPP and TTIP, they are pushing for "three strikes and you are out" banning companies from the US market if they violate market rules three times.

[Comment: The strategy seemed to be to try to persuade US employers to join the union in a fight against foreign employers seen as unfairly undercutting them. This doesn't seem to me a likely strategy to develop the international solidarity needed to beat the companies dominating world markets and defend jobs.]

Conference heard a report on the disgraceful events at Tullis Russell papermakers in Fife. Despite being employee-owned, the directors had managed to put the company into administration, land and assets sold without the owners' knowledge or any warning. Over 400 workers had lost their jobs and had not been paid £18m they were owed. One family lost £90K as three people worked there. The CEO had walked off with a £500K bonus. As neither HMRC or banks were owed money, there was no proper investigation and no illegality has been proved. The Scottish government and local councils had been supportive with funding retraining, and 85% of the workers now had jobs in other industries. However, the impact locally had been devastating with shops closing etc. A few reps can't get work and fear they have been blacklisted. If this can happen in an employee owned company it shows how inadequate UK corporate law is.

Howard Beckett from the legal department talked about the need to see legal work as part of industrial strategy, rather than as a member benefit or something that is used when an industrial strategy has failed. He highlighted several examples where an aggressive legal stance had been important for industrial campaigns, and argued that was why the government was attacking unions' ability to use the law. When we choose to fight outside the law, we want to be able demonstrate how we tried to stay within it and that the issue is significant enough that members will take the action required to win.

Howard highlighted three recent ballots which had topped the proposed thresholds in the Trade Union Bill (Rolls Royce, GKN, and Syngenta chemicals). In each case it had been important to work out a proper strategy to win in advance. At Rolls Royce, only 60% of members were affected by the pensions issue. Normally that would make it hard to get a big yes vote. Reps had carefully chosen one key site to ballot, and workers at the other sites pledged to contribute financially to make up their wages. The site returned an 80% turnout and a 96% yes vote. After UNITE explained its action plans to the employer, including plans to move action to other sites after an initial 12 weeks, an agreement was reached without any action being needed. GKN had followed a similar strategy. Howard urged sectors to consider what strategies would fit in their industries and identify key powerful groups.

Employers often seek injunctions when protests take place at the same time as industrial disputes. Sometimes they even claim protests are secondary picketing. Where protests take place without any individuals, organisation or structure (e.g. committee, Facebook page) organising them, it is much harder for employers to blame them on the union or to find any other "target" for an injunction. Protests with speakers are harder to ban because they can also benefit from the right to freedom of speech.

Howard is keen to get feedback on the new Unite Legal Services web site, to which examples of the many cases we win for members in each sector are being added.

The new "low pay rate" of subs (currently just £2 a week) for those earning below the Living Wage or less than £15,000 a year, hasn't had much publicity. To pay for this the standard subs rate had risen significantly in 2015, but there will be no rise in 2016.

Legal officers are being appointed and trained in the regions to improve legal support to officers and reps and help ensure legal issues are considered early in campaign planning.

Mark Metcalf highlighted the books being published by UNITE, book of the month recommendations and rebel road (lists of plaques, museums, statues, pubs etc commemorating labour movement heroes) which are all on the learning section of the UNITE web site.

Industrial strategy


Sharon Graham was unable to attend the GPM&IT conference to discuss the outline she presented at the plenary, so this agenda item was not discussed fully. The National Officer undertook to circulate to all delegates the exercise that Sharon had intended to do, and encouraged us all to canvass views so that it could be discussed at the next NISC meeting. It was agreed to invite Sharon to that meeting.

Motions

The following motions were agreed:

1 Industrial Strategy for the Sector (from the National Industrial Sector Committee)

Conference welcomes the outstanding election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Labour Leader with 59.5% of the vote on a platform of anti-austerity, and a bold new vision of a fair and just society for working people.

We congratulate Unite Executive Council for the decision to endorse Jeremy Corbyn and to recommend support for him by Unite members. We also congratulate the work of the Unite Political Department for the tremendous effort they put in to sign up more than 100,000 Unite affiliated supporters, more than half of the total number of affiliated supporters signed up by all affiliated unions. There is no doubt that Unite's Political Strategy to engage with and win back the Labour Party for working class values has been hugely important in achieving this success.

We therefore call upon the NISC to work with the Unite EC to:

• lobby the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn to develop an industrial strategy that seeks to support the GPM&IT sector in the UK
• lobby the Labour Party to adopt a policy towards National Sector bargaining
• Lobby support for our Sector fight on procurement and public authorities use of GPM&IT recognised companies

2 Organising Strategy (from the National Industrial Sector Committee)

This conference recognises that large sections of the industries in the GPMIT sector are un-unionised or under-unionised, and that this weakens the bargaining position of every worker in the sector. Organising is therefore a high priority if we are to help workers in our sector to build more power to defend and improve their lives.

This conference congratulates the NISC on the creation of an organising strategy subcommittee in July 2014. To support their work we call on our National Officer, research department, RISC members, workplace reps, branch officers and officers with GPMIT in their allocations to work on mapping the sector so that we build a more accurate, complete and up to date picture of GPMIT workplaces. The mapping should identify, for each workplace, factors including:

1. Address
2. Number of workers by employer (including agency, subcontractors etc)
3. Number of members by employer
4. Details of all reps and branch officers
5. Details of recognition, I&C and EWC agreements
6. Other workplaces of the same employer
7. Unite branch
8. Officer
9. Any other unions present
10. Any union structures linking Unite at this workplace with other unions or other workplaces in the same employer
11. Subsector (appropriate categories to be defined)

Communication is at the heart of organising. We call on all RISCs to email out a short bulletin following each meeting to all GPMIT reps in their sector, with a copy to the National Officer for consideration of the NISC. This can help engage more activists with our RISCs and involve them in the mapping and organising.

RISCs should use the mapping decide which of the following organising categories best fits each workplace in their region:

1. Substantial single workplaces with recognition – “100%”
2. Workplaces in employers with membership but no recognition – “green field”
3. Workplaces in multi-site companies/groups where we have recognition in parts – “extend horizontally”
4. Unionised workplaces in other industries with ITC outsourced on site to an employer with >20 employees – “client site”
5. The rest – “nurture”

The NISC’s organising strategy subcommittee should develop proposals for organising and servicing each of these categories more effectively for consideration by the NISC and RISCs. These may include recommendations on officer allocation, branch structure and use of lay companions to allow resources to be focussed on building power for members to win more.

The NISC should provide a report to RISCs after each meeting on progress with the organising strategy.

[Comment: The mapping described in this motion clearly overlaps with that Sharon Graham was talking about for developing an industrial strategy, as well as with motion 3. In the discussion, it was clarified that the reports from NISC to RISCs are not intended to be full minutes or reports, but prompt updates on progress with the organising strategy. Similarly, the RISC updates to reps would focus on key points for information or action.]

3 100% Organising (from East Midlands)

Conference applauds the commitment of the Union to organising and the work of the organising department in growing our Union, which is key for the movement to survive. As activists we understand the need to look at new industries and to organise the non-unionised sectors of the economy, but this cannot be at the cost of losing traditionally well unionised industries.

This Conference calls for a membership audit of all national and international employers within the Sector; this could be achieved with the aid of the Research Department, and lead Regaional Officers. The information would be used to develop an organising strategy for the Sector, involving activists within recognised sites of the targeted companies to strive to 100% membership across the sites.

5 Collective Bargaining with the Sector (from East Midlands)

Over the last ten years we have witnessed the loss of our major National Agreement, the BPIF, which covered the majority of the printing industry. The Agreement was not only responsible for negotiating annual pay increases but more importantly it set out the minimum terms and conditions for employment within the industry.

As a result of this sector representatives have nothing to refer to when trying to negotiate rates of pay for new technology or changes in working practices within their workplaces. This vacuum has led to a decline in rates of pay and terms and conditions within the Sector.

Conference believe that the Union needs to address these issues or face a race to the bottom as companies play our members off against each other on terms and conditions of members working in this sector.

Conference calls upon the EC to publish a Unite Guide for activists working within the Sector, based on both past and present National Agreements held within the Sector. The Guide will be a useful tool in organising and as a means to try and ensure we maintian minimum terms and conditions within the Sector and protect the interests of our members.

6 Collective Bargaining Strategy (from South East)

Conference instructs Unite the union to facilitate, through the National Officer, group meetings of all the major companies in the sector, the aim being to coordinate a national collective strategy in group and sub-sector level.

7 Printing Industry National Bargaining (from South West)

For those GPM members not currently covered by a House Agreement or a National Agreement this conference demands that future wage negotiations revert to being carried out on a national basis or every effort made to re-establish national bargaining with the appropriate employers' organisation.

8 The March of the Robots (from London & Eastern)

World-wide sales of robots rose 23% in 2014 while prices fell by 14% meaning sophisticated automated systems can be purchased at £100,000 and some robots as low as £20,000.

In those manufacturing sectors that are most readily automated such as cars, other transport, computers, electronic and electrical equipment about 85% of tasks can be performed by robots.

It is expected that other sectors such as food preparation and manufacture, chemicals, metals, energy (drones are already replacing human riggers at oil sites), transport (driverless cars and trucks are being tested in California) and construction (remote controlled diggers are being tested in Sweden and 3D Printing in the Netherlands) will follow suit.

The US financial sector around Wall St employed 150,000 five years ago and that has now shrunk by a third due to technology.

Many work roles previously thought invulnerable to automation are now at a growing risk because the enhanced capacity of such systems have meant many job functions can be codified and with hugely advanced sensor systems they threaten hundreds of different service industry jobs.

This is happening now because processors that run computerised systems double in capacity every eighteen months. This has led to Cloud Computing that has freed a growing number of employers from the vast expenditure of owning their own large computer systems. That in turn has assisted the collection of Big Data using advanced mobile technology and the Internet of Things whereby machines communicate with each other generating even more data (50 billion devices connected by 2020). Technology observers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology to Oxford University have predicted between 35% and 47% of current employment roles are at high risk of automation.

The UK Tory Government has not been slow to see the advantages of such developments and alongside spending millions on R&D they have set up strategic bodies with academics and employers but notably no trade union representatives.

We call ont eh GPM&IT NISC to seek the support of the Executive to establish a working party of one senior lay rep per industrial sector to monitor these developments that threaten our members' (and future members') employment prospects.

The UK economy map highlighting work that is stategically important and future proofed needs revisiting in light of these innovations to ensure our organising efforts are flexible. Technology affects all sectors in some way or another.

Unite must lead the way on thhis by creating policies that result in technology helping to create a better society and environment and is not just used as the ultimate cheap labour resource to only create redundancies.

9 Agency Workers (from London & Eastern)

Conference calls upon our NISC to formulate a strategy to deal with the growth of agency workers within the sector. Conference would like to see a positive programme in place where workplace reps and regional officers are encouraged to firstly map the companies where agency workers exist and to proactively recruit and organise them, with the sole purpose of extending collective bargaining within the sector.

Agencies such as Aktrion and Ambtions Personnel are now the majority of the workforce in many of our companies, and their rates of pay, terms and conditions are usually set at the legal minimums. Using the statutory recognition legislation and the CAC we need to ensure that we provide a collective bargaining famework to remove this two tier workforce.

Our members need to understand that to ignore agency workers in their companies not only undermines our influence and power but put their own pay, terms and conditions and permanent roles at risk.

10 Holiday Pay (North East, Yorkshire & Humber)

Conference welcomes the campaigning work of Unite the union on holiday pay. This vital issue affects many employees across the Sector.

Immigration fringe

In the evening I attended a very useful meeting about the Immigration Bill 2015-16, which aims to create a "hostile environment for migrants" by laying "trip-wires" throughout society. The speaker was Don Flynn from the Migrants' Rights Network, who also handed out the TUC briefing on the bill.

The bill aims to increase requirements on employers, landlords, financial institutions and public servants to frequently check the immigration status of people they are dealing with. Employers and landlords can face hefty fines if they fail to do so. Immigration officials will be able to raid businesses and shut them down for 48 hours if they can't produce paperwork to show how they have checked their workers' immigration status.

The bill isn't just about people who the law says have no right to live or work in the UK, it also applies to the terms under which they are allowed to do so. The bill creates a new criminal offence of "working without permission". For example, if someone lets a room in their house to an overseas student, and they work 21 hours one week instead of 20 hours, the student could face up to 12 months in prison and deportation, while the landlord could face a hefty fine. The effect of these restrictions will be to increase harassment of anyone who looks or sounds as if they might not be British. Employers and landlords will feel under pressure to discriminate rather than taking the risk of falling foul of the law, making it even harder for workers from ethnic minorities to get jobs and housing. This will be made worse by requiring a high standard of English for jobs in the public sector - even where the role requires no dealing with the public.

Wages for anyone "working without permission" will be treated as "proceeds of crime", meaning someone who falls foul of the law has no right to their wages.

An excellent discussion covered many points. Immigration law has already been used by employers to break up workplace organisation and intimidate workers, as for the SOAS cleaners. Employers rely on migrant labour, and will increasingly do so as the UK population ages, but want workers feeling vulnerable and insecure.

The immigration bill will have a negative impact on many members, as well as on organisation. Reps need to be ready to support members affected. Don ended by pointing out that the bill relied on implementation to be oppressive, and there were many ways in which workers might fail to implement it, particularly when cuts force them to choose which aspects of their roles to neglect.

Tweet

Civil Rights and the Trade Union Bill

I've written a piece on the Tories' new Trade Union Bill and opposition to it, which has been published here.

Tweet

Protect the right to strike

The Tories' new Trade Union Bill is a massive attack on civil rights, from the right to strike to freedom of expression and assembly.

TUC General Secretary Fraces O'Grady has produced a short video as part of the campaign against it:

The TUC has also produced a briefing on the proposals.  This is well worth a read, because the government's proposals go much further than the Bill itself.  Many of the worst aspects are contained in the linked consultation documents and in amendments to the regulations governing temp agencies to allow them to supply scabs during a strike.

The TUC is organising a rally and lobby of parliament on Monday 2nd November which everyone should build and attend.  It's also worth getting involved with campaigns such as the Campaign For Trade Union Freedom and Right To Strike.

As Len McCluskey argued so powerfully at the Unite Rules Conference, many workers are also going to have to be ready to break this unjust law if it passes or be unable to resist their employer successfully.

Tweet

IBM Pension closure successfully challenged in court

Good news for workers seeking to defend pensions - with a High Court ruling against IBM over the closure of their final salary pension scheme to future accrual.  The core of the ruling is that the way the pension scheme was closed breached the contractual duty of trust and confidence.

The ruling is here.  There are many reports online, including from the legal team for the pension fund trustee, Professional Pensions and Employee Benefits.

IBM has already said it intends to appeal.

Tweet

The government onslaught on TUPE rights - a threat to us all

Workers in IT Services often face being transferred from one employer to another as customer contracts are lost and won.  This process is covered by the EU "Acquired Rights Directive", which became UK law through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations, commonly known as TUPE.

TUPE was meant to protect workers against having their terms and conditions worsened as a result of the change.  It only ever provided partial protection, with major gaps (for example in relation to pension rights).  There's a UNITE guide to the 2006 regulations here.

Now the government proposes to worsen the limited legal protection we have.  The outcome of the government's "consultation" is here.  Below is an extract from a union commentary on the proposed changes, which are expected to come into effect in January 2014.

The proposals, if implemented, will be very bad news for workers in many industries, but IT Services will be particularly badly hit.  They would make it easier for employers to dismiss workers, short-circuit redundancy consultation, make it easier for employers to change terms and conditions, and open the door to more arguments about whether or not TUPE applies when services switch between suppliers.

It has always been the case that strong union organisation is a better protection for employee rights than just relying on the law.  The changes will make this even more true.  And of course even though the law will still ban some activities by rogue employers, other government changes mean workers not in a union who need to make a tribunal claim will face the prospect of either stumping up sizeable tribunal fees or seeing "no win no fee" solicitors taking a large chunk of their compensation.

This is a government of millionaires helping their mates get richer by slashing the rights of working people.  This week I've been at a UNITE training course on TUPE where reps from different IT & Communications companies came together to learn how best to protect employees during and after TUPE transfers.  It may be possible for union members to challenge the legality of some of the changes as cases come up, but the danger is that workers lose their jobs, terms and conditions while such challenges grind through the courts.  Workers need to get better organised now to defend ourselves when TUPE rears its head.

Unite commentary on proposed changes to TUPE Regulations (5 September 2013)

The government has announced proposed major changes to the TUPE Regulations, including:

·         Restricting the service provision change rules
·         Permitting employers to seek to change terms and conditions derived from a collective agreement after 1 year.
·         Weakening unfair dismissal rights
·         Permitting consultation on possible redundancies before a transfer to count towards the transferees obligations to consult under section 188.

The TUC is concerned that several of the proposed changes do not appear to be consistent with EU law including the Acquired Rights Directive and the Collective Redundancies Directive.

TUPE protects employees' terms and conditions of work when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Staff automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions as they were on before, and their continuity of service is also protected.

However, under the government's plans TUPE will not always apply when services are outsourced.

These changes will lead to the erosion of the pay and conditions for low-paid staff in sectors such as cleaning, social care and catering where outsourcing is common, says the TUC. It argues this will have an adverse impact on women, who are more likely to be employed in contracted-out services than men.

In addition, employers will now be able to re-negotiate changes to collective agreements one year after transfer. This will give them extra flexibility to cut pay and conditions after a transfer takes place.

The summary of the government’s proposals with TU side comments are as follows:

·         The Service Provision Changes rules (SPC) will be amended so that they only apply if the service is fundamentally or essentially the same following the transfer. The government argues this is simply codifying case law.

However this change could significantly limit the SPC provisions, with the risk that tens of thousands of service sector workers will lose out on TUPE rights. It will also cause huge uncertainty for employers and lead to increased litigation.

·         The government is proposing two major changes relating to TUPE protected pay and conditions negotiated through collective agreements. The government plan to allow employers to renegotiate collective agreements one year after a transfer. Any changes must be agreed and any changes must not be overall less favourable to employees affected.

This proposal blatantly attacks trade unions’ ability to represent working people. It victimises individuals covered by collective agreement. This approach is not consistent with the Directive. It’s also unclear how they could make this change in EU law.

·         The government is also planning to legislate following the CJEU decision in the Alemo-Herron to provide for a static approach to transferred terms and conditions.

The decision of the CJEU is very problematic and effectively means that the Acquired Rights Directive can be interpreted as providing a ceiling of rights rather than a floor of rights. The TUC plans to raise concerns via the ETUC.

·         Other variations to terms and conditions post transfer. The government also plans to amend regulation 4 to allow for unilateral variation of terms pursuant to a contractual provision if such changes could otherwise have been made.

It’s not clear what this means. We suspect the government plans to say that if employers were able to vary terms and conditions if a transfer had not taken place they should be able to do so after a transfer. The TUC will investigate further to check whether this change will drive a coach and horses through the Regulations.

·         A change of location will become an ETO reason justifying dismissal.

This will mean it will be easier for employers to sack staff after a transfer where work is undertaken in a different location.

·         Wider unfair dismissal rights: The government plan to amend Regulation 7 to ‘more closely to reflect the wording of the Directive’.

These changes will weaken unfair dismissal rights

·         Consultation on redundancies undertaken before the transfer will count towards the new employer’s obligations to consult under section 188 of TULR(C)A 1992.

This will substantially weaken protection for transferring staff. The proposal is also not consistent with the requirements of the Collective Redundancies Directive.

·         Micro firms (with 10 of fewer employees) who do not recognise a union will no longer be obliged consult with employee representatives on TUPE Transfers. They can inform and consult employees directly.

The Directive does not allow for a small firm exemption on this or other TUPE rights. It is essential that consultation continues with recognised unions.

·         The transferor will not be able to rely on the transferee’s ETO to dismiss an individual before the transfer.

This is welcome, although if the government had proceeded to make the proposed change it would have been in breach of the Directive.

·         Disclosure of Employee liability information: The current provisions are to be retained. The notification period will be extended to 28 days before the transfer takes place.

This is welcome, but is mainly a response by government to the business lobby.

Tweet

UNITE Political Fund ballot - vote YES despite the spin

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:

1. 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.
2. We could not support those few MPs, councillors and candidates who do actually stand up for our members.
3. We could not campaign against re-electing councillors or MPs who have led particular attacks on our members.
4. 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.

Tweet