Labour and the Trade Unions in the 21st Century

Politics in this country are changing. What worked in previous decades may not work in the future and despite the continuing economic crisis the left in particular has to adjust to the world as it is, rather than continuing to view it through the rose tinted glasses of the past is going to be essential. One of the issues that has been in the fore-front of the news recently is the continuing relationship between the Labour Party and the trade union movement.

 

The origins of the Labour Party owe much to the unions as they were instrumental in the establishment of the Labour Party and have been the backbone of Labour electoral support despite the obvious fact that a substantial number of "workers" to coin a phrase used often by the left, have always voted Conservative. In recent years despite the New Labour project, "Blairism" and the like, the unions remain the main "paymasters" of the Labour Party.

 

In itself this made some sense over most of the latter half of the 20th Century. The Tories were the party of business and the Liberals were just a small fringe party with no particular influence. The unions, representing at their height millions of members  therefore needed a political "outlet" and Labour was the obvious choice.

 

Today the membership of the unions has halved from their heyday, with the public sector trade unions making up the bulk of affiliates to the TUC. Society has changed, with private sector unions having gone through a sharp decline with the destruction of Britain's' manufacturing base through the Thatcher years. The growth of the mostly un-unionised service sector with shifting patterns of employment and the growth of home ownership has led the traditional working class, the proletariat as a Marxist would call them to become a minority in society. At the same time there has been the growth of a clear "underclass" dependent on welfare and alienated from the system itself.

 

As Britain becomes more "middle class" despite the continuing struggle of people in the current climate, there seems no sign of this process abetting, the role and influence of the unions has declined. Whilst the modernisers within Labour look for solutions, large swathes of traditional Labour and in particular, trade union activists still refuse to adjust to the reality of modern political life.

 

Trade unions still have a role to play in society, in part as one of the "checks and balances" that has kept Britain a democracy. But at the same time political loyalties are changing. The Liberal Democrats (and the SNP in Scotland) were the recipients of support from many voters due to their disillusionment of the two main parties. That support has collapsed and we have seen the rise of UKIP, viewed as a right wing by the labour movement but which has gained support from many voters that would be considered working class. The two main issues given for the rise of UKIP were Immigration, then Europe. These are issues that need to be tackled.

 

The left has always had a problem with immigration controls, but It's clear that many voters, including those from many ethnic minorities recognise that the UK's population is growing far too quickly and the finite (and constantly cut) services, let alone lack of housing etc. cannot cope. The main comment I hear from members of my union is more along the lines of "the country is full" rather than the more extreme stuff we used to hear in the seventies. The country has changed and this issue needs to be tackled with well thought out policies that do not pander to prejudice but also take into account peoples real concerns. Immigration has to be controlled. the demand for open borders that still exist amongst prehistoric sections of the left are no longer viable.

 

Oddly the question of Europe sees the left take sides with the more xenophobic elements of the right. The European Union is here to stay and we need to take part in shaping and influencing the future. Isolationism is not an option. Many of the "rights" we currently enjoy would be abolished by a right-wing and EU Government, so the left needs to think through the issues on a practical, rather than ideological level.

 

A Labour Party that is more than just the unions is the way forward, but it must and should retain the backing of the remains of the trade union movement. Neither can make gains isolated from each other, though an effort must be made by the TUC to rebuild the unions in the private sector as interests between the public and private sector workers must be taken into account Labour also needs to expand its base away from just the traditional layers of support and on the question of Europe seek to make a case for remaining in the EU which most businessmen believe and will be necessary for the economic recovery in the future.

 

To make this work a lot of union reps and party activists are going to have to dump some of the baggage of the past. The alternative will be to end up in a dead end project like the RMT & chunks of the PCS leadership with the Trade Union & Socialist Coalition. Those who hold to purist views will not put food on peoples tables, restore the NHS and get some social housing built. And that's just for starters.

 

In order  to obtain a better (even if imperfect) deal for our members there needs to be real change, and that needs to begin by dumping the tried and failed ideas of dead Russians and the like. The process of rebirth will not be easy for the Labour Movement but one that needs our urgent attention.

Standing up against clerical fascism at home and abroad

At the weekend millions of ordinary Pakistani men and women defied the threats of the Taliban and went to the polls to cast their vote. A small number paid for that right with their lives.  They are not alone:

• In Bangladesh thousands of supporters of Hefazat-e-Islam rampaged through the streets of Dakhar demanding death to the atheist bloggers whilst at the same time pretending to be part of a movement for democracy.

• In Tunisia Salafist thugs fire-bombed and burned down three offices of the main Tunisian trade union last year. The attacks continue.

• In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood continue with their attempts to suppress all opposition and introduce an Islamic state.

• Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups (like Al Nursa in Syria) that use extreme violence to promote the domination of the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam that was previously alien to many Islamic nations.

The growth of these intolerant, misogynist and violent movements across the Middle east is disturbing and they should be opposed by all Trade Unionists across the world. 

According to The Times today there ahas been a growth of such people in our Universities, with Islamic Societies being hijacked by extremist who bully and intimidate. They breach the human rights of women by trying to enforce gender separation in meetings and violence is never far away.

Neither is the intolerance as threats of death are made towards homosexuals and non-Muslims, which go beyond the right of free speech to realm of inciting hate and must be cracked down on by the authorities.

And yet there is some cowardice in facing up to these problems. No one should be afraid of speaking out against such extremism. In the Universities the NUS and UCU should be at the forefront of fighting back against these people who are nothing more than an Islamic equivalent of the BNP.

And no one would hesitate to picket and fight back against the BNP.

Yet when it comes to Islamists some people get all "politically correct" or worse. These people wreck our institutions of learning because they despise secular education, and eduction for women in particular.

Yet some of these people continue to find friends. The SWP seemingly backs the Hezefat-e-Islam movement in Bangladesh as does George Galloway it would seem.

In a speech to a meeting in East London he made the following, rather chilling remarks:

On Saturday he called  for “, a peaceful revolution that will remove this gangster government. The media is now under the almost total control of the Hasina government”. He claims there “has been an almost total media blackout about the massacre.”

Galloway added this threat,“I’m against hanging anyone but it’s a fundamental truth in politics that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. There has to be an end of the politics of revenge.”

Perhaps he'd like to remind some of his audience that should apply to "atheist bloggers" but I doubt that would suit his agenda (whatever that really is these days).

Galloway works for Press TV, which is the mouthpiece of the Iranian Government, the same one that hijacked the election for President in case anyone has forgotten. Oh and still tortures and rapes its prisoners by the way. 

His increasingly bizarre world views included a sterling defence of.. North Korea, the worlds largest prison camp.

And yet he still manages to retain his admirers on the so called left.

The clerical fascists or Islamists, what ever you would like to call them are a threat and the people that really suffer from their actions are ordinary Muslims, men and women who simply want to get on with their lives.

There can be no appeasement with these thugs and terrorists, they have to be resisted wherever they raise their ugly heads.

Democracy can and must prevail.

Is PCS a union for its' activists and not the members?

The recent PCS National Executive Committee elections resulted in the lowest ever turnout in the unions history. With just 9.5% of eligible voters taking part there is a clear message that members are becoming disengaged from the union. Combined with the ever decreasing number of members taking part in the current campaign of industrial action there is a clear danger that the union is becoming ever more irrelevant to the direct interests of the wider membership.

None of the political factions in PCS (including my own) can claim to have any kind of real mandate at the moment to do anything as the main focus of members is getting through the month on their meagre wages, with many members (myself included) not having had a pay rise for five years. The only place where there is any confidence in the ability of PCS to do something positive is in the realm of "Personal Case" work.

The 4themembers group is currently having a discussion about the general situation in PCS and the problems that face 4TM as the main opposition group in the union, and the only group of "mainstream" activists who operate nationally. Michael Hitchen a long term PCS activist wrote that:

Why did we have such a low turnout - partly because the members are ahead of us politically, they have modernised their version of what trade unionism is, a service based "workplace insurance" 21st century form of trade unionism.

The members don't want so many names on a ballot paper only the zealots have the time to read all those dead trees. Neither do they want to go out on strike for a day as an empty gesture.

 

What do they want?  The reps to tie HR up in knots and come along to meetings when they are in trouble mainly.

Pretty much an accurate summary of PCS members views I would say.

Of course the debate going on in both 4TM and the other factions will be much more wide ranging and will need to continue for the foreseeable future as there are simply no easy answers, no straightforward formulations that will turn the general situation around for the immediate future.

On Friday I wrote about the decision of former PCS Deputy General Secretary Hugh Lanning to stand for the position of General Secretary of Napo, the probation officers union. It occurs to me the the whole debacle of Lannings departure from PCS in a huff raises some serious questions about accountability in PCS.

Exactly how many of us ordinary "grunts" could quit two years ahead of retirement on a whim and get an early payout from the employer? None I hear you say. Exactly! Its' not as if Lanning took an early bath on health grounds otherwise how could he be standing for the leadership of another public sector union?

Lanning had two years to run as DGS, for which he was paid several times the wage of the average member and his Retirement package must also bring in a pretty penny. Why was he allowed to "retire" on the members money, when he clearly was simply looking for another job?

Given that Mark Serwotka has "recommended" him for the post of General Secretary of Napo, I think that we, the dues paying members have a right to query this little arrangement made by the PCS Grandees.

Interestingly there are a couple of motions for PCS Conference to abolish the post of DGS given the financial situation that the union is facing, whilst at the same time praising Lanning for the work he has supposed to have done for us. Given he "prioritised" his overseas activities with the anti trade-union Cuban dictatorship, the equally venal Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela, not forgetting his numerous trips to the Hamas  terrorist run Gaza Strip, I think I'd strongly disagree with that sentiment.

Members are waiting for another push by the far-left run union in their ill thought strike campaign which will no doubt be central to the comrades contributions at National Conference in sunny Brighton next weekend.

They will be expected to lose money they can ill afford.

Yet at the same time they are paying for the unnecessary retirement of Hugh Lanning. Questions need to be asked and answers need to be forthcoming.

Whilst this is all probably legally sound, it remains morally questionable in my view.

Given that the comrades at the top of PCS like to lecture us about the "socialist" alternative to the "rip off bankers" this reeks of hypocrisy and double standards.

No wonder support for PCS is in decline.

Hugh Lanning returns like Lazarus in... Napo?

It's only a few weeks since Hugh Lanning the former Deputy General Secretary of the PCS union quit retired from his post in an apparent fit of pique over the antics of the Socialist Party in the union. Having more than a few mates in the Unite union poor old Hugh was incensed by the attacks on Len McCluskey (the Unite General Secretary) over his pro Labour Party stance since the Socialist Party Grandees favour their own tiny Trade Union and Socialist Coalition.

For full details see: http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/have-socialist-party-scuppered-merger.html

Given he must have a reasonable package from PCS, you'd think he'd go for the quiet life pottering in his garden and having his annual holidays as the guest of his Stalinist mates in Cuba or at the Hamas hotel in Gaza. Not so it would seem. He's standing for the post of General Secretary in the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo).

One of the interesting things about his candidature are his two sponsors who he lovingly quotes in his election statement:

My two supporting referees are Mark Serwotka, General Secretary of PCS, and Judy McKnight, former General Secretary of Napo.

Is there more to this than meets the eye? Judy McNight is also a former PCS Grandee of sorts.

Lanning makes much of his time in PCS:

I want to be part of this fight.  I bring experience of dealing regularly with senior ministers of this and the previous administration.  I have extensive contacts within the labour and trade union movement – key allies if Napo is to win.

I wonder which allies he is talking about?

The main thing most of us remember of Lanning is that he spent much of his time abroad in Cuba, Venezuela and gallivanting around Gaza with...Hamas with whom he has in particular built connections as a result of his also being Chair of the so-called Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

He wasn't nicknamed Hugh "passport" Lanning for no reason.

Lanning's "extra-curricular" activities always seemed to take a priority over the interests of ordinary PCS members.

Napo members should be aware that this man contributed to the PCS union becoming weaker and more isolated in the trade union movement over the decade or so that he was Deputy GS.

As for being "recommended" by the Marxist windbag that is Mark Serwotka it should actually serve as a further warning that his connections and motives for standing are highly debatable.

If Napo members want to keep their organisation as a proper trade union then Hugh Lanning is not the man for the job.

A modest step forward for 4themembers in PCS elections

The results for the National Executive Committee elections in PCS were declared earlier this evening and contained a small number of surprises. As expected the far-left Democracy Alliance won the elections and will no doubt be putting a strong spin on their results, but there is a lot for them to worry about. However there is one concern for all members; the abysmal turnout.

PCS is the fifth largest union in the UK with  over 250,000 members of whom a mere 23,404 bothered to vote. That's 9.5% and as far as I can recall the lowest ever turnout in PCS elections.

This comes at a time when the union is attempting not just a campaign over pensions, pay and conditions of service but is at the forefront of a (Socialist Party inspired) campaign to initiate a General Strike, so the outcome and lack of participation from the membership is hardly inspiring.

The election saw some modest advances for the more mainstream 4themembers group who ended up with 4 seats and had a couple of near misses (due to departmental limitation rules which prevented two higher polling candidates from being elected). The loss of the sole independent on the NEC (Jake Wilde) following his departure from the 4TM group was sad but unsurprising.

Most candidates (myself included) remained in relatively the same position as last year, though maverick lefty Dave Vincent can reconcile himself with not being in last place which went to a candidate who submitted no photo or election address.

The third group in the elections the Independent Left made no progress whatsoever.

However none of the factions can claim to have won over the members with over 90% abstaining and if democracy is to survive in the union an attempt must be made to involve the membership in the unions internal procedures.

With support for the current dispute in clear decline and very little planned for the future, the newly elected NEC must reconsider its' current course.

There are those that do want make a break with the past and now is the time to get involved.

For more information go to: http://www.4themembers.org.uk/

Or write to: info@4themembers.com

Its' your union. Get involved and make it work for you, not the political activists!

From bums on seats to shoes on feet, a more light-hearted look around PCS

It's all gone a wee bit quiet today as the various political factions wait to see how well or badly they do when the results of the PCS National Election results are declared tomorrow and the SOCA Group Executive members await their fate at the extraordinary Politburo NEC meeting also due to be held tomorrow. So as we await some important outcomes I thought it might be worth having a look at two motions being discussed at the DWP and Home Office Group Conferences in just over a week or so.

The first motion is from DWP South London Branch and was written by PFL* scribe "Barabbas". It takes a serious issue of the fact that DWP delegates alone will not get "official time" to attend either DWP or National Conference and challenges the incumbents over their handling of the whole issue. In doing so "Barabbas" uses some choice phrases not normally seen in the usually rather dry formulations of the political activist class that dominates PCS and in particular, the DWP.

Conference. Look around you at the empty seats usually filled by the plump bottoms of middle aged delegates and the less rotund ones of younger delegates. Have they all been sacked? Have they all retired? No! Conference, they are not here because the GEC failed to negotiate paid time off for them to attend. For many, their annual leave entitlement is already allocated to family commitments, looking after kids or grandkids in school holidays, or assisting disabled relatives. For some of the lowest paid, reliant on Tax Credits, asking them to take unpaid leave is an ask too far. 

The GEC assured us that the agreement to time off for reps was safe until 31st May. This has proved not to be the case. For an issue as central to Group policy as this, it brings into focus whether or not the GEC is capable of running a Whelk Stall, let alone negotiations for the largest government Department. We have been represented by probably under-qualified negotiators, out-manoeuvred by slick government spin doctors and apparatchiks for too long which has allowed situations such as this to happen.

Our negotiators must be trained to industry standard and the incoming GEC is instructed to ensure our negotiators are thus trained. The refusal of paid time off to attend Conference has created a dangerous precedent. The Government has picked off the biggest Department, seemingly without demur. Unpaid time off to attend Conference for all Departments will likely henceforth become de rigueur, subject of course to that other Departmental cri de Coeur, “business needs”. 

The outgoing GEC must take responsibility for this debacle and offer an explanation, to be agreed by Conference. If not offered or agreed, the outgoing GEC must be censured for failure to carry out their duties as elected. Such censure for failing to adequately carry out their duties will be circulated to all DWP members within one calendar month of close of Conference via a statement on the PCS website and Branch Circular. 

Conference instructs the incoming GEC to reverse this situation by proper negotiation using properly trained negotiators, involving ACAS if necessary. Progress to be reported back to all members within 3 calendar months of the close of Conference and again at 6 months via a statement on the PCS website and Branch Circular. The negotiators must be named and their qualifications as negotiators listed. 

If progress by the 6th month stage has proved unfruitful, Conference instructs that the GEC should consider a members ballot on industrial action which should include withdrawal of goodwill and an overtime ban.

I urge delegates to support motion A103!

Not to be outdone the question of Shoe Allowances has become a matter of some concern for Croydon Home Office Branch who have submitted this wonderful motion (A28) to their Group bash:

This conference notes HO/MB/132/12 entitled: The Removal of the Shoe Allowance Etc (or There‘s no business like shoe business).

Conference believes that the use of punning in MBs has now gone too far. The demise of the Shoe Allowance is no time for such hilarious tomfoolery, and that such punning must end.

There are a number of serious issues involved here however first and foremost is why is it called a Shoe Allowance‘? Most of out members have a proclivity to the wearing of more than one shoe, yet it is not a ‗Shoes Allowance‘. Is this merely an allowance for uni-peds in the department, or for those members who select to hop to, from and around work? This basic issue was not addressed in the MB as the authors were obviously distracted by the clever punning.

Therefore conference agrees that PCS must drive a stiletto into the heart of management on the issue of the Shoe Allowance. Further advice must be provided to our member by those qualified to do so, these trainers will deliver guidance on the ‗Shoe Allowance‘ to our members, and this guidance must be delivered in plain English and not some form of brogue.

This is the sole issue for some of our members and management must be brought to heel. The policy as it stands is cobblers and PCS needs to lace together the various strands to create a sensible way forward and give it some welly. This may set tongues wagging but we must put our foot down.

Conference therefore instructs the GEC to notify the authors of said MB that they are in danger of receiving the boot as they are clearly loafers, and as such will not be allowed any further platform.

I also urge delegates to vote for this motion as well.

*While we are not on the subject of the long-standing satirical PFLCPSA website (for outsiders think a PCS version of Private Eye) it has been banned from being accessed from DWP computers I discovered yesterday as it contains "tasteless and offensive material", which err.. is exactly what it always has been. I'll leave it to "Judas" and "Barabbas" to explain to perplexed readers in their next edition.

Their website can be found 'ere http://www.pflcpsa.com/ as usual. Tell 'em "Howie" sent you!

Some uncomfortable truths for Mark Serwotka

The "breaking news" about the goings on in the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) as a result of interference by PCS General Secretary raises a number of questions about how the union is run. The one thing that stands out for me is the decision to prevent the members of SOCA voting on the deal reached by their Group Executive Committee. Surely if Serwotka thought he was on "solid ground" with his objections a ballot would have been a way of testing members opinions.

It is likely that members in SOCA (given that there is little or no chance of reversing the Government's decision to subsume them in the Police Force) would have welcomed what seems by all accounts a good deal in the circumstances. For someone like Serwotka to deny them the right to vote on their own futures belies his claim that PCS is a "members led union" as his cronies claim.

No wonder there have been resignations from PCS.

However this is far from being the only area where the leadership have directly failed members as I was reminded on Friday  a PCS Rep in the now privatised (or mutualised if you prefer) My Civil Service Pensions.

It's' actually worth reading a statement issued by PCS on May 1st 2013:-

When the Cabinet Office imposed the first mutual in the civil service on staff at My Civil Service Pension - the body that administers the pensions of 1.5 million serving and retired civil servants – it was so unpopular it led to industrial action.

One of the first decisions, entirely against the will of staff, was to strip workers of their civil service status under the new arrangement and, therefore, access to the civil service pensions they administer.

Last year the respected Civil Service World newspaper published a survey that showed only 16% of civil servants were even “interested in exploring the idea” of becoming a mutual.

In a survey of all MyCSP staff conducted by the union in 2011, 94% of respondents said they did not agree with Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude's claim that it would “empower employees”.

Mr Maude is on record as saying he would be happy for mutuals to be fully sold off to the private sector in future.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "There is nothing mutual, co-operative or employee-led about what Francis Maude is trying to do.

“The first mutual in the civil service was imposed by Maude’s government against a backdrop of strikes by the staff who wanted to remain as civil servants.

Willie Samuel (PCS MyCSP) copied  Mark Serwotka into the message below:

What kind of fantasy world do these people live in?

A 'background of strikes'? PCS was nowhere when MyCSP was mutualised and did nothing. Yeah, we had a half day strike on Friday afternoon far too late after the event. Even the all member circulars issued by PCS more recently have had to admit that.  I can quote over a dozen members who wrote to Mr Serwotka at the time and to this day still await a response. We only knew PCS had imposed an overtime ban when management told us!

Membership has dropped to below 40% due to the unions neglect, failure to advise and general incompetence.

Again Mark Serwotka shows how out of touch he has become with the real needs of PCS members. During the period in question he was spending far too much time on his extra-curricular activities.

Now despite all the evidence showing the current dispute is achieving nothing Serwotka has written to Reps stating the following:

All members involved in the dispute will take one day of strike action between now and 20 June.

As well as being highly effective, we know that the employer particularly dislikes short-term, disruptive action.

Let's ensure that we remember this year as the one when we forced the government to negotiate and stopped these attacks on our pay, pensions, facility time and hard-won terms and conditions.

Well I would join Willie Samuel in wondering what fantasy world they do live in indeed.

Members are clearly not behind this failing dispute despite what the charlatans of the far-left National Executive Committee tell us. Turnout has been abysmal, in some Departments virtually non-existent. This is not a strategy for "victory" as Serwotka would have us believe.

The Pensions dispute ended some time ago and as for Pay, we are as my own (far-left) Group Executive Committee admitted when they put in a claim for 5% or £1,200 (whichever is the greater (members are still laughing at the naivety of that):

As these talks are constrained by the centrally imposed pay cap they cannot be considered to be genuine pay negotiations

In other words its' 1% guys. That’s it.

The credibility of PCS as a union has never been lower than it is now. How much longer local reps can "hold the line" with Serwotkas politically self-interested agenda wrecking any prospects of improving our lot remains to be seen.