Organising strategy - mobilise or organise?

On 8th November I attended four fascinating meetings at the Historical Materialism conference with people from the USA and Canada discussing the plight of the labour movement and ideas for turning it round.

I found the debates really useful and there were a lot of ideas the British labour movement should engage with.  I've written up some of the key points as a series of three articles.  The first ("Mobilise or Organise?") is mainly about Jane McAlevey's ideas on organising strategy and has been published here.  The other two should be published over the next few days and will cover "Migration, the labour market and social reproduction" and "Reversing the decline".

Tweet

Government attack on redundancy rights

Yesterday the government announced its plans to cut the minimum period for employers consulting their employees before making large scale redundancies from 90 days to 45 days.  It's already easier to cut jobs in the UK than in many other countries, but the Tories and Lib Dems want to make it easier still.

The 90 day period only applies where an employer plans to dismiss 100 or more staff through redundancy in one establishment, so this change only affects bigger employers.

I was pleased to see that UNITE promptly put out a press release attacking the move.  This is an issue we should take into the workplaces too.  Many employees, whether union members or not, know from bitter experience how important the consultation period is for protecting jobs.  We need to mobilise them against this threat.

The consultation period is supposed to allow employees, usually through their unions, to get information from the employer and put forward ideas for avoiding the redundancies, reducing the numbers of redundancies, and mitigating the consequences of the redundancies if they go ahead.  This process often does save jobs.  Cutting the time available means fewer jobs will be saved.

The consultation period is also useful for individuals.  It gives them time to consider their options, to seek redeployment within the company and to look for work outside.  In my own workplace we have negotiated time periods better than the existing legal minimum and this has been a major factor in securing redeployment within the company for many staff.  Shorter consultation periods mean fewer redeployments, more lives wrecked and employers wasting more money making staff redundant and then hiring new ones.

There's another factor in this which unions need to take very seriously indeed.  The change would, when combined with the anti-union laws, make it extremely difficult for members to take lawful industrial action in defence of jobs.  The anti-union laws require the union to provide the employer with an accurate breakdown of the numbers and categories of members to be balloted 7 days before a ballot opens.  Preparing this can take weeks.  Ballots rarely run for less than two weeks, after which the union has to give another 7 days notice to the employer before lawful industrial action can begin.  So even if the union is perfectly prepared and can issue the notice of ballot instantly, without any checking of membership records (pigs might fly) you still need a minimum of about 4 weeks before action can begin.  If the government goes ahead with this I foresee more and more workers feeling that the anti-union laws give them no way of defending their jobs lawfully and deciding to take unofficial action instead.

I heard one government spokes-idiot referring to the proposed change as getting a better balance between employers and workers.  The employer-employee relationship is an inherently unequal one and rarely more so than in a redundancy situation.  Can workers decide to make their bosses redundant?  Yet the Tories and Liberal Democrats obviously think that the feeble employment protection workers currently enjoy gives workers too much power in the relationship and it needs to be reduced!  Is it too much to ask that Labour's front bench vigorously oppose this?

The proposals are fully in tune with the overall government approach, which sees working tax credits and other benefits being cut for the poorest, while corporation tax is cut for their city mates.

Tweet

Manchester Area Activists Committee

I attended the Manchester Area Activists Committee (AAC) meeting today - here are some of the key points:

1. There is an urgent need for training (and possibly a handbook) for branch officers to be in place for when the new term of office starts on 1 July.  A remit had been sent to the region some time ago.  Delegates felt branch administration processes should be consistent nationally so training would be best dealt with nationally.  I was asked to bring this up at the EC meeting next week.
2. The decision of the last North-West Regional Committee to write to all reps to advise of the need for workplace elections has still not yet been implemented, though an email had gone out yesterday to officers in the region.
3. The AAC decided to organise an open meeting in late July for branch officers about how to perform their roles in the new UNITE set-up.
4. The AAC agreed that the date of the next open Area Activists Meeting would be brought forward to 7pm on 17th July at the UNITE Salford office.
5. The AAC agreed to to write to all the "community members" in Greater Manchester to explain that the meeting on 17th July will discuss setting up a community branch in Greater Manchester and to invite those who are interested in helping run it to come along.
6. There was a discussion about the TUC's national demonstration on 20 October in London and it was agreed to "initiate an open organising meeting in the next few weeks to build the maximum turnout for 20 October from Greater Manchester and to approach other unions, trades councils and campaign groups to take part".
7. The Manchester Area Activists Conference (which will elect the committee for the next three year term) is open to all UNITE's "accountable representatives of workers" in the area and will take place at 6pm on 27th September at the Salford office.  The new committee will have its first meeting immediately after that.
8. It was agreed to support and publicise the Unite Against Fascism demonstration against the EDL and BNP in Rochdale on Saturday.
9. There were reports about ongoing industrial issues at Thomas Cook and in construction.

Tweet

Eligibility for lay office (rule 6)

Updated guidance from the UNITE Executive Council on rule 6 (eligibility for lay office) has been published here.

This mainly deals with who is an "accountable representative of workers", which has been a contentious issue in UNITE.

Tweet

We're NOT all in it together

I've come across two sets of information recently which have rammed home the point that we're not "all in it together".

The Sunday Times has published its annual "Rich List".  Even their own headline makes the point "The Sunday Times Rich List reveals that Britain’s wealthiest people are richer than ever despite the worst recession since the 1930s".  Even The Telegraph, that well-known friend of the poor, highlights the discrepancy between the rest of us and the top 1000 people: "Their total fortune has risen by just under five per cent since 2011, to £414 billion, according to the latest Sunday Times Rich List.  That exceeds the previous record of £412.8 billion set in 2008, which came just a few months before the financial crash from which the wider British economy has yet to recover".

The second set of information has received a lot less publicity.  I found it via the blog of the economist Michael Roberts.  In this article on the weak US recovery, he highlights how as profit rates recovered, corporations hoarded profits, rather than reinvesting them, undermining the recovery of the wider economy.  The figures are staggering - he explains:

"US corporate profits have recovered dramatically since the trough at the end of 2008.  They surpassed their previous peak in 2006 by early 2010.  This was achieved by a massive reduction in costs (including labour costs) and a strike in investment.  But most of the recovery in profits since the end of 2008 has been hoarded and not spent on new investment.  According to these latest figures, undistributed profits have accumulated to $744bn from just $19bn at the end of 2008!   Profits are up around $1trn since then, but the cash accumulation is up over $700bn, so only 30% of the increase in profits has been spent on new investment.  This explains why the economic recovery has been so weak, with the US economy growing only barely at 2% a year (1.6% yoy according to the latest Q4’11 GDP data)."

So next time some millionaire cabinet minister (and most of them are) tells us that there's no money for decent jobs or for the services we all rely on, let's remember that there are individuals and corporations sitting on vast wealth which could be far better used by those who produced it.

Tweet

UNITE Community Membership

This week's UNITE Executive Council discussed arrangements for members who are not in paid employment, which includes students, people out of work, people unfit to work, carers and pensioners.

This post deals specifically with "community" members.  I've posted already about retired members - who should read both posts.

To push through its austerity measures, the government is seeking to divide those in work from the rest of the population.  UNITE's new community membership initiative is intended to build unity, give a voice to those not working, strengthen community support for members in work and strengthen the union's campaigning role in our communities.  At the same time, the union's primary focus remains the workplace, so the structures have been set up so that community members can be properly represented within the union's structures, but not dominate them.

Anyone over 16 years of age, not in paid employment and not already in a union should join UNITE as a community member and get involved.  This includes students, the unemployed, full-time parents and carers, people too ill to work and pensioners.

Community membership costs 50p a week, preferably paid by quarterly direct debit (£6.50 every 3 months).

New Community Branches are being set up, initially based on the same areas as UNITE's existing "Area Activist Committees" within each region and serviced by the same officers.  So for example in the north-west, my region, the areas are Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancashire, Cumbria and the Isle of Man.  The first branch meetings will normally be called to elect officers once 50 members have signed up in a particular area.  They will also elect two members onto each Area Activist Committee.

Community branches are funded on the same basis as all other UNITE branches, though Regional Committees may decide to financially support particular campaigns or initiatives.

A "Community Support Unit" is being set up at UNITE head office for an initial six month-period, after which it will be reviewed.

While I would hope most people would take up UNITE community membership to get involved and active, the initial publicity for Community membership focuses heavily on the "benefits" package, which includes:

• Legal services (legal helpline, personal injury support)
• Welfare benefits, tax and financial mis-selling advice
• Gas & electricity comparison service
• Debt counselling
• Unite pre-paid debit card
• Employment assistance service (CV writing, job applications, interview tips)
• Access to hardship grants
• Accident cover
• Discounted insurance

Tweet

First day of UNITE Rules Conference

The biggest debate of the day was over a proposal to remove the wording in Rule 2.1 of the rulebook which ties the union to compliance with current and future anti-union legislation. Despite an EC recommendation to reject the amendment, it was only defeated by 53%.

Summary of decisions:

Rule 1 Title and Registered Office

A1 CARRIED

Rule 2 Objects

A2 Removing "so far as may be lawful" - LOST

A3 Strengthening (non-party) political objects - CARRIED

A4 FELL

A5 LOST

A6 Delete requirement to affiliate to the Labour Party - LOST

A7 Add caring responsibilities to the list of equality and fairness strands we aim to address - CARRIED

A8 Improve wording on gender identity - CARRIED

Rule 3 Membership

A1 Create category of membership for students and others not in employment who can participate in Area Activist Committees and Regional Political Committees - CARRIED

A3 LOST

A4 LOST

Rule 4 Membership Contributions & Benefits

A1 LOST

A2 LOST

A3 LOST

A4 LOST

A5 FELL

A6 WITHDRAWN

Rule 6 Lay Office

This was a major area of debate, with concerns about activists being excluded from participation in union structures because of unemployment, including blacklisting. The EC statement aimed to protect the general principle that the structures should be composed of accountable representatives of workers, while being more flexible where appropriate. Rule 3 A1 also expanded the involvement of those out of work.

EC Statement - CARRIED

A6 Add Union Learning Reps to the list of accountable representatives of workers - CARRIED

All other amendments were withdrawn or defeated.

Rule 7 Industrial/Occupational/Professional Sectors

A1 WITHDRAWN

A2 FELL

A3 LOST

A4 From IT & Comms NISC, to give industrial structures access to a proportion of membership subs - LOST

A5 LOST

A6 From NW IT & Comms RISC, to ensure National Industrial Sector Conferences are bigger than the corresponding National Industrial Sector Committees - CARRIED

A7 LOST

A8 LOST

A9 LOST

A10 WITHDRAWN

A11 LOST

A12 LOST

A13 LOST

A14 LOST

A15 WITHDRAWN

A16 empowering RISCs to fill vacancies, including those due to members who do not attend 2 consecutive meetings without good reason - CARRIED

A17 LOST

Rule 8 Regions

A1 clarifying election to Area Activist Committees - CARRIED

A2 WITHDRAWN

A3 FELL

A4 WITHDRAWN

A5 LOST

A6 LOST

A7 LOST

A8 Requiring the Regional Secretary to write to the nominating committee seeking a replacement delegate in the event of any seat on the Regional Committee becoming vacant - CARRIED

A9 CARRIED

A10 LOST

A11 LOST

A12 Giving resources to Area Activist Committees - LOST

A13 LOST

A14 LOST

A15 LOST

A16 LOST

A17 WITHDRAWN

A18 enabling 50%+1 of a Regional Committee to call a special Regional Committee meeting - CARRIED

A19 LOST

Rule 9 Young Members

A2 Allow Regional Young Members Committee to elect a delegate to Regional Committee - CARRIED

A4 Inrease age limit for young members from 27 to 30 - CARRIED

A5 WITHDRAWN

Tweet

Unity against the Tory attacks on the jobless

Much of the public debate about the Tories' proposals to force jobless people to work for nothing has missed the point. It has concentrated on whether or not this will "help" people who are out of work get the hang of how to work. But of course the Tories and their Lib Dem stooges couldn't care two hoots for the unemployed - that's not what it's about.

The reason why there are more people out of work now than a couple of years ago is not down to a sudden loss of the "work ethic" by poor people, a pandemic of laziness, or an increase in the appeal of trying to scrape by on a pittance. It is because employers decided to cut millions of jobs and we largely failed to stop them.

While we havejobless people who are desperate for a job and unable to get one, why should any of us complain if there's a small minority who aren't? They're giving those that are keen to work a better chance.

And of course that's a clue as to why the Tories are really proposing all these attacks on people relying on state benefits. This cabinet of millionaires wants to increase profits for themselves and their mates by driving down wages for people in work. And the more people who are desperately competing for every job, the easier that will be.

That's why it's vital that none of us fall for the divide-and-rule arguments pumped out by the Tories and their friends in the media, trying to encourage those of us lucky enough to be in employment to blame those who aren't. Instead we need to recognise that every campaign to defend state benefits is a campaign to protect our job security and our pay and conditions. We need unity against the cuts, not scapegoating of the poorest in society.

I'm delighted that the Right To Work campaign has produced a petition against this work-for-nothing scheme. It should be used in workplaces, not just amongst the unemployed.

Tweet

"Corporate welfare" questioned over HP jobs subsidy

PC Pro is reporting concerns about whether the 700 "new" jobs HP is creating in Scotland are really new at all, or whether the company is merely making redundancies and then pocketing public subsidies to hire new staff.

This is not a new issue. Back in 2005, the Amicus Policy Conference passed "Composite 1" on Manufacturing, which (amongst other things) decided to:

Campaign for Government powers to stop companies coming to the UK, obtaining national and local grants and then closing the company down when these are exhausted. Legislation is needed to force companies to stay in a region for up to ten years to allow for community stability and security.

At a time when there is so much government and media effort to stigmatise and scapegoat ordinary people who have been thrown out of work and are reliant on benefits, and young people who have left education to face a barren job market, it is worth remembering how much corporations pocket in grants and tax breaks (what Michael Moore calls "Corporate Welfare" in the US) and the many billions of tax avoided by the very rich.

Tweet