National Delegate Conference will never be quite what you expect as you head in, and this year was completely different.
On the first day the General Secretary called for a major change of tack in our political work, which the Labour Link structures will be addressing over the coming weeks, particularly at the Labour Link Forum (the conference within the affiliated structures) in two weeks time.
Some real progress has been made on the unions structures, with the creation of the Police and Justice Service Group, the Community Service Group and the merger of Water and Environment and Transport Service Groups, now WET. Conference also redefined Sectors to be our bargaining units, and create Occupational Groups which will cover specific staff groups such as Nursing & Midwifery. It was disappointing that the rule changes that would have given members in sectors proper autonomy over their own pay and conditions fell but I’m sure this will be addressed in future years.
Another big disappointment was loosing the rule amendment which would have allowed the union to expel BNP members within the context of the new employment legislation. This was strangely mobilised against by the left with who seemed paranoid that it was about them and that their own parties could fall foul of UNISON’s most basic objectives of equality. A damming indictment of their own organisations!
After the conclusion of the Conference the old NEC change to the new (so I no longer represent Young Members specifically and now represent the West Midlands), and with all up for grabs the NEC meet briefly at the end of conference to elect the Presidential Team. Unfortunately this meeting could not go ahead because someone who is not a member of the NEC was present, with the support of our far left colleagues. I hope it was a coincidence that in all likelihood we would have been celebrating our first black Vice President tonight and that this had nothing to do with their wrecking actions!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I assume that the person who you're referring to was John McDermott, the person who happened to win more votes than John Campbell for the Yorkshire and Humber male seat in the NEC elections.
I had a quaint notion that in elections the candidate with the most votes wins. Unfortunately UNISON seems to be planning to waste our members money in an attempt to stop a validly elected NEC member from taking his seat.
Even if John was there, why did that stop the NEC from holding a meeting?
James, I suggest you seriously reconsider your last paragraph. It could be construed as accusing members of your union of deliberately disrupting a meeting in order to prevent a black member being elected. That would quite frankly be a disgusting thing to say and I would be ashamed to be in a union with someone who felt able to say that.
It would seem that the independent scrutineer (ERS) made a decision in that case, the NEC did not and should not interfer with that.
And anonymous - I think the last paragraph was very clear that I hope that that isn't the reason.
I really agree with Anonymous (though do wish that people are open about who they are when they criticise).
James, you're a bright man, you know exactly why John McDermott attended and you surely know, deep down, that it was right for him to attend. He did win the election after all. You do know that he wouldn't have attended to stop the union we're both proud of from electing it's first black vice-president.
But I also wanted to tell you how upset I am that you suggest that I, along with many other good UNISON activists are against equality.
James, you know me, I spoke, along with you on the motion at Health Conference where we called for the Dept of Health to establish legal powers to keep BNP members out of the nursing profession. I know that you are committed to fighting the fascists and keeping them out of my union. You ought to know the same about me.
But Rules Amendments 4 and 17 did not achieve the aim. Let's look at RA4 in detail so I can explain to you why I was opposed.
"A member of a political party, the objectives of which are contrary to the objectives of UNISON, in particular those equality provisions set out in Rules A3 and/or B1.2 and/or B1.3 of the UNISON Rule Book, shall not be eligible for membership of this union."
For those without a rulebook handy
Rule A3 is "The Union shall seek to ensure that discriminatory acts are not committed against any persons by the Union, or by its organs, members, or officers, on grounds such as race, gender,
sexuality, gender identity, disability, age, creed or social class."
Rule B1.2 is "To seek to ensure equality of treatment and fair representation for all members and to work for the elimination of discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, gender identity,
disability, age or creed."
Rule B1.3 is "To seek to protect the rights of all members to be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, gender identity, disability, age or creed."
Of course, no left groups would be opposed to any of those three objectives, but there are currently another 28 Objectives of UNISON, some of which might be opposed by different political parties.
How about B4.1 "To maintain a political fund and the relationships which reflect the traditions of COHSE, NALGO
and NUPE." Of course, the policy of many political parties is to end the UNISON political fund, the rules amendement would have made it possible to expel any member of such a party.
What about B1.4 "To improve the pay and conditions of members and promote their interests." Both Labour and Tory parties seem likely to oversee a sustained attack on our jobs, pay, conditions and especially pensions. Rules Amendments 4 & 17 would have made it possible to expel you and me from the union, not because we're rascist or fascist because we're not, but because we're members of the Labour Party. Was it really necessary for the NEC to make the criteria so broad?
Meanwhile it leaves a hole so wide that an actual fascist could stay within the party, open and untouchable. I won't say how (though I would to you privately) but if this amendment was the result of legal advice I would seriously consider new lawyers.
So a rules amendment that would not actually work at keeping out the BNP, but could and probably would have been used against anyone that any future NEC didn't like.
Of course I voted against it, the real question should be is why would you support it?
I already posted this on John Gray's blog but hope you think its worth putting down in the comments here as well:
So basically what we have is a United Left that fails to
1. put up any black NEC candidates other than in the black members seats;
2. support black members and women members by only backing white male candidates in the general seats for the NEC;
3. priortise low pay as an issue and challenge for just one of the low-paid seats on the NEC;
4. consult black, women, and young members on their candidiates for the NEC;
5. host candidates statements by ANY black members on their NEC elections website;
6. condemn United Left members who are found guilty of stealing or misusing members money;
7. support the rule change which could have seen BNP members kicked out of our union;
8. enable UNISON to elect its first ever black vice-President.
What despicable scum.
I hope the chairs of the self-organised groups are aware of this and bring it to the attention of their members.
@Anonymous
I refer to my answer above about why about half the conference rejected the rules change, if you want to discuss that issue, I'm happy to. If instead you just want to call the United Left names, well that just seems silly.
By the way, why don't you use your name? I've got my name and picture on here (if you click on DM Andy you can see my real name). Being accountable for my words is a lot better than hiding under a cloak of secrecy.
Post a Comment