UNISON over the past twenty years - neither growing nor (our members) prospering

The announcement yesterday of the forthcoming retirement of Dave Prentis, UNISON General Secretary for the past twenty years, will be the occasion for much praise. You won’t be reading this blog expecting to see more of that. Those who want to consider the future of UNISON (and therefore make decisions about candidates to replace Mr Prentis) need to take a clear-headed view about what has been happening to our trade union over the past twenty years.

 

This blog post is a small contribution to that necessary discussion and I shall start by looking at what is happening to our membership, based upon the returns which the Union makes to the Certification Officer. The number of members contributing to the General Fund (i.e. paying subscriptions) according to the earliest return readily accessible online (for 2003) was 1,301,000. The equivalent figure in the most recent return published online (for 2018) was 1,204,500. That decline of 7.4% over those fifteen years may well have been arrested – even reversed – more recently, and in any case compares favourably to the plight of the movement generally over the same period.

 

However, the performance of the trade union in achieving what it is that members look for from a union is perhaps less satisfactory – I will take the case of pay in local government (UNISON’s largest Service Group) and look at the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC) the body which negotiates pay for local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and is the largest single bargaining unit in the economy). UNISON has a majority of seats on the trade union side of the NJC.

 

On 1 January 2001 (when UNISON’s third General Secretary commenced the first of his four terms of office) the hourly rate for the lowest paid local government worker was £4.61(an annual salary of £8,886) and spine point 28 was £9.52 (£18,372). This compared with a National Minimum Wage rate (for those aged 22 and above) of £3.70. The lowest point on the pay spine was therefore 25% above the minimum wage and spine point 28 (the highest point at which there is an entitlement to overtime payments under the terms of the national agreement) was more than two and a half times the minimum wage.

 

The current rate of the minimum wage is £8.72, the lowest point on the NJC pay spine is £9.00 an hour (an annual salary of £17,364) and the new spine point 22 – the equivalent of the old spine point 28 – is £13.64 (£26,317). The lowest point on the pay spine is now barely 3% above the minimum wage (as opposed to 25% twenty years ago) and a local government worker on the equivalent of the old spinal column point (SCP) 28 is now on just over one and a half times the minimum wage, as opposed to two and a half times when Mr Prentis first took office as General Secretary.

 

Looked at another way, the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose from 72.6 in January 2001 to 108.5 in May 2020 (by 49.4%) so the money terms increase of 43.3% in the salary of a local government employee on old spine point 28 was actually a 9.6% reduction in real terms (whilst the 30% real terms increase at the bottom of the pay spine was outpaced by the 58% real terms increase in the minimum wage).

 

Neither during a decade of New Labour, nor during a decade of austerity (which also witnessed dramatic reductions in employment in local government) have we been able to improve the pay of UNISON members in our largest Service Group, other than for the lowest paid (whose fortunes have been influenced more by the need to try – and fail – to keep pace with increases in the statutory minimum wage rather more than by any gains from collective bargaining).

 

The challenge facing those who would step into the shoes of Dave Prentis is to set out a plan to build the union – and to increase its effectiveness in promoting and defending the interests of its members and potential members.

Dave Prentis retires - how should we elect his successor?

It is official then. Having served four terms as UNISON General Secretary, Dave Prentis, now in his 70s, will not seek a fifth.

 

There’s a fair bit to be said about Dave’s time at the helm, but that is not the purpose of this post. Nor do I intend here and now to blog about the question of his successor. I should imagine I may get round to both those things, having already started thinking about the latter.

 

As reported on Labourlist, Prentis said today that “in order to comply with trade union law, our NEC development and organisation committee will meet this week to discuss a timetable to elect my successor and full details will be published once that is agreed.”

 

Having spent fourteen years, from 2003 to 2017, serving on that Committee, covering the three previous elections for General Secretary, I think that what will happen is that the “D&O” Committee will meet this week and make recommendations to the full National Executive Council (NEC).

 

Some aspects of the forthcoming election are laid down in the Rule Book – such as the number of nominations which a candidate will require. Other aspects, such as the precise timetable, are within the discretion of the NEC.

 

Paragraph 7 of Schedule C to the Rule Book sets it all out; “The National Executive Council shall have the power to determine any matter of procedure or organisation or administration of or relating to the election, including the power to determine the method of voting (whether to be by simple majority; by single transferable vote; by multitransferable vote; or by some other system) provided that the person(s) securing the greatest number(s) of votes according to the system employed shall be the person(s) declared elected, so long as they are and remain eligible for election.”

 

In all previous elections the NEC have decided to use the system of “first past the post”, which the Rule Book rather misleadingly describes as “simple majority” (since it doesn’t actually require a candidate to win a majority of votes, just a plurality – i.e. more than any other individual candidate). Whilst I was on the NEC I tried – and failed – on more than one occasion to make the case for using a preferential voting system.

 

I hope that, as UNISON moves into a new era, those now serving on the D&O Committee will at least pause to consider whether they should recommend that the NEC uses its discretion to decide to use STV in the forthcoming General Secretary election.

 

A preferential voting system not only ensures that the winning candidate wins with the support (even if not the first preference) of a majority of those who vote, it also encourages a more positive campaign as between competing candidates, since second and – if there are enough candidates nominated – subsequent preferences are in play.

 

UNISON turned 27 this month, which is too old to be a Young Member, and it may just be time for the internal political culture of our trade union to grow up.

Or perhaps I am just a hopeless optimist.

Anonymity in political disagreement

Having spent many years as a socialist activist in our movement (all of them as a Labour Party member) I have encountered from time to time those who do not appear to agree with the view, which I have seen attributed to Lenin, that “spitefulness in general plays the worst possible role in politics.”

 

In years as a (sometimes, I hope) troublesome left-wing critic within UNISON I was, from time to time, the target of red-baiting attacks, some of them anonymous. In the earlier years of my activity the form which such attacks took included “poison-pen” letters and email circulars, graduating for a time to a scurrilous anonymous blog.

 

I have never paid too much attention to views expressed anonymously. There may be times when whistleblowers need the shield of anonymity to expose the misdeeds of the powerful, but anonymous attacks upon those who challenge the powerful are generally worth ignoring.

 

It is with this in mind that I noticed that an anonymous Twitter account gave me a mention a little while ago. This account, to which I will not link, spends most of its time attacking Labour left-wingers in Brighton and Hove (most recently with a series of scandalous attacks upon a Labour MP).

 

The individual (or individuals) behind this regrettable demonstration of their personality disorder use anonymity only to attack those who believe in a better world, and want to do something about it. They do so very ineffectively, since in four years they have accumulated only just over 200 followers.

 

A useful rule when dealing with those whose politics have never taken them further than when they were a bully in a school playground is to disbelieve them, disregard them and disrespect them. Life is too short to take them seriously (and not only for me!)

The sacking of RLB - what is to be done?

The sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary casts a light upon the state of our Party in these times.

 

For a start, the actual offence for which she was apparently dismissed – tweeting a link to an interview with a prominent actress (about whom she was complimentary), is something for which no one could have been sacked a few decades ago – because there was no Twitter (and the world may not have been improved by its arrival).

 

Secondly, the assumption that if one publicises a “link” to an article or interview, one is automatically endorsing every opinion or statement expressed therein, which appears to be gaining ground, leads in a ridiculous direction. That would be like suggesting that, because Keir Starmer tweeted birthday greetings to Eleanor Marx on 16 January he therefore agrees wholeheartedly with her that “History teaches us that no great social revolution has ever come about by the use of mere moral force, and history has taught us that no class willingly expropriates itself.”

 

It appears that Maxine Peake was repeating an inaccurate claim when she told the Independent that US police had learned the technique of kneeling on someone’s neck from Israeli trainers (a moment’s thought does suggest that racists in the USA have been doing that – and much worse – to Black people since long before there was a state of Israel). However, this one misguided remark was very much at a tangent to the main thrust of the interview to which Rebecca Long-Bailey approvingly linked.

 

Thirdly, and in any case, Peake’s error amounted to a (perhaps unjustified) criticism of Israel, and, as the IHRA definition states “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” Since Peake said what she said in the context of her opinion that “Systemic racism is a global issue,” and her opposition to capitalism globally it is not difficult to agree with John McDonnell that the article in the Independent (for linking to which Long-Bailey was sacked) is not anti-Semitic.

 

Parenthetically, it is worth adding that I was wrong a couple of years ago to think that there was no significant problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, just because I myself had not encountered this. The now infamous “leaked report”, as well as illustrating attempts to undermine Labour from within around the time of the 2017 election (and much else beside), included evidence of conduct by Party members which plainly was anti-Semitic (and of the apparent failure by those charged with the relevant responsibility to deal with this effectively).

 

It is, however, such a stretch to characterise Rebecca Long-Bailey’s conduct in tweeting approvingly about an actress who, in an interview with a newspaper, makes a mistaken claim about the role of the Israeli state as amounting to “retweeting an antisemitic conspiracy theory”, that I am inclined to agree with my old comrade Mike Phipps that this sacking “reeks of political calculation” and is calculated to encourage some left-leaning members to abandon the Party in anger and despair (particularly if she is not replaced by another member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs).

 

As unlikely as it may be that the divided forces of the Labour Left will manage to find a way to create a single slate of socialist candidates for the National Executive Council (NEC), with the current balance of opinion among the membership, were this unlikely eventuality to come to pass the NEC might provide a powerful brake on any attempts to shift the Party rightwards. Those who are determined upon such a (foolish) course of action will therefore be happy to see potential voters for such a slate cutting their membership cards up and posting the pictures on social media.

 

It goes without saying that socialists within the Labour Party should not respond by rewarding those who made this political calculation with the outcome they desire. Neither should we sit quietly with a view to resuming our historic role described by Miliband and Saville in 1964 – as a “shapeless entity” and rather ineffectual pressure group.

 

The sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey is best understood as just the latest move in a century-old struggle between those who believe that Labour should be about the fundamental transformation of society and those who believe that such a goal gets in the way of Labour gaining office (in order to achieve the more limited changes that are feasible on the basis of the current social order).

 

Socialists in the Labour Party should raise our profile determinedly in response to this development. At grassroots level we should organise meetings, to which we should invite Socialist Campaign Group MPs, to campaign in support of the best elements of the Party’s current policy programme – and to change and improve the worse.

 

Rebecca Long-Bailey, who many of our constituencies nominated to be Leader a few short months ago, now has more time on her hands and would be an ideal member of a panel of Campaign Group speakers reaching out to the Party membership and wider movement. Freed from the constraint of Shadow Cabinet collective responsibility Long-Bailey could, for example, boost the campaign for a Green New Deal in a way that places constructive political pressure on the Party leadership from the left.

 

As the Party slowly reopens our local policy making machinery we should also reach out and demonstrate solidarity – for example to the workforce of Tower Hamlets Council who are, quite disgracefully, being threatened with dismissal and re-engagement by their (Labour) employer, or to the Palestinian people facing the prospect of the unlawful and unjust annexation of their land.

 

The best way to respond to injustice within the Labour Party is to redouble our efforts to combat injustice outside the Labour Party, and to strengthen the forces fighting for socialism within our Party and beyond.

UNISON General Secretary Election 2020

Yesterday I looked in on an online meeting of my UNISON Branch (quite appropriately as I am a retired member) and heard Assistant General Secretary Roger McKenzie speaking passionately and persuasively about Black as the colour of politics rather than skin.

Whilst this experience did make me think a bit about how slow the Labour Party has been to enable online organising and campaigning even compared to the trade unions, seeing one of our Assistant General Secretaries speaking reminded me that there has to be a UNISON General Secretary election before the end of the year.

Five years ago, I wrote here – in the run up to the last General Secretary election – about how such an election would be unlikely to be an opportunity to build the organisation of the left in our trade union (an observation which turned out to be true, even though I later found myself an enthusiastic supporter of the candidate who would – in the end - come fourth out of four).

Since I shared my recollections of previous General Secretary elections at length five years ago (in the post linked to above), I won’t repeat that here. Instead, I will share some views based on our experience of the 2015 General Secretary election (during the course of which we exposed serious wrongdoing in certain quarters).

It is worth remarking that the 2020 election may be very different on the (not unreasonable) assumption that the incumbent General Secretary (my well-publicised apology to whom I stand by, no matter what others may say) does not seek a fifth term.

An incumbent General Secretary cannot possibly be defeated by a divided opposition, even if the National Executive Council uses its power (in accordance with Schedule C.7 of the Rule Book) to allow for voting by single transferable vote (which it certainly should).

However, if there were more than one senior official putting themselves forward, and if there were a single left organisation united behind a single candidate, then – even without a progressive change to the method of voting – a rank and file victory might be possible.

That said, whilst the first of those two predictions might come true, the second is only likely if my comrades on the left in UNISON have undergone a truly dramatic transformation since I stood down three years ago. If there is no prospect of a single rank and file candidate of the left then maybe we should be giving serious consideration to the senior officials who put themselves forward.

UNISON is crying out for a change of approach at the top of the Union. I don’t know who may put themselves forward as a candidate and whether or not they may offer some hope of creating the space in which those seeking such change can campaign for it.

I do know – because I have been one – that defeated candidates in General Secretary elections cannot bring such change, and that a divided left cannot win a UNISON General Secretary election.

Down but not out - trade unions running to stand still?

Today’s news that trade union membership in the UK is inching upwards (an increase of 1.4% or 91,000 to 6.44 million) is hardly grounds for (even a socially distanced) party to celebrate – but it does tell us something about the resilience of our movement.

To quote further from the official bulletin; “Trade union membership levels among employees have now risen for three consecutive years following the fall to a low of 6.23 million in 2016.”

Trade union density (the proportion of UK employees who were trade union members) “also rose slightly to 23.5% in 2019 up from 23.4% a year earlier, and from the low of 23.3% in 2017.” This does of course mean that for every union member there are more than three non-members at work across the economy as a whole – and plenty of room for further growth.

The union movement is increasingly feminised; “The rise in trade union numbers among employees was driven by the increase in female members, up 170,000 on the year to 3.69 million in 2019.” (which implies that the total number of male union members fell by 79,000). Whereas in the twentieth century there were more male than female trade unionists, since about the turn of the century women have outnumbered men in our unions.

Other features of trade union members which have been reported on previously remain true. Black workers are more likely to be trade unionists than their white counterparts (which may reflect the relative concentration of Black workers in more highly unionised sectors). Trade union members are older on average than all workers, and those who have long continuous service with one employer are more likely to be unionised.

The trade union movement continues to based largely in the public sector; “The overall proportion of employees who are members of trade unions is significantly higher in the public sector relative to the private sector. 13.3% of private sector employees belonged to a trade union, compared to 52.3% of public sector employees, in 2019.”

Public sector trade unionism is continuing the modest year on year recovery which began last year, following a substantial fall in membership associated with Tory austerity policies between 2010 and 2017. However, as with the period before 2010 the increase in public sector union membership is associated (and failing to keep pace) with rising employment in the sector, so union density actually fell slightly in the public sector over the last year.

Overall the statistics suggest that our trade union movement is treading water rather than making real progress – but that is of course better than drowning. Having spent fourteen years on the UNISON NEC Development and Organisation Committee from 2003 to 2017 I am familiar with the challenge of high turnover of union members (as the UNISON NEC reported to Conference last year, recruiting nearly 170,000 members in 2018 hadn’t been enough to prevent a decrease in overall membership).

As our union movement faces the twin challenges of the “return to work” after the partial lockdown and the coming recession, the movement is hardly in robust good health, but nor is it in intensive care. Now would be a good time for a serious debate about the future direction of our trade unions.

It would be good to think that such a serious debate might arise as a result of forthcoming General Secretary elections in both UNISON and GMB.

But that would be a triumph of hope over experience.

Advising an errant employee on "netiquette".

I have been blogging here now for almost fourteen years.

In that time I have sometimes gone back to amend – or delete – posts after they were originally posted.

There are all sorts of reasons why one might do that and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong (although good "netiquette" would be to identify and date any substantial amendment)

It would, however, be a bit misleading if – for example – I were now to go back to a post written in (say) 2014 in order to write in a prediction that the Tories were going to win a parliamentary majority and stage a referendum which would lead to the UK leaving the European Union.

Happily, the internet protects against such gross breaches of “netiquette” and so if I did that (and then sought to claim the blog post in question as evidence of my prescient wisdom) I could easily be caught out.

Remembering what I was saying yesterday about giving advice to workers as a union representative I can only add that, if I were advising someone whose job was to be a high-profile political advisor who had been exposed for rewriting their own personal online history in this way, I would have to advise them that such deceitful behaviour could undermine the relationship of trust and confidence upon which an employment contract is founded.

So they could find themselves in trouble at work.

Unless they were Dominic Cummings and they worked for Boris Johnson, who does not think he is responsible for managing subordinates.