Unions and Labour

[hitmouse]

Thought it might be worth having a thread about this as we prepare for the glorious Starmer golden era... dunno about other unions, but Unison national are now pushing Labour pretty heavily, here's what their website's front page currently looks like:



("Wes" ffs).
Having only ever been actively involved in a trade union under the tories, I'm interested to see how this all plays out under a Labour government. Helpfully, Rachel Reeves has explained that Labour are going to be pro-worker and pro-business, so if the plan works out then I suppose we can all float happily along on a tide of rising prosperity. But if that doesn't work out, and it turns out that workers still need to collectively assert our interests, even in ways that businesses and the government might not like, what then? It certainly sounds like the current Unite leadership might have a bit more spine on this point than Unison's, and even within Unison there's a lot of people who won't be happy to just toe the Labour line. But then I suppose the Labour/bureaucracy dead hand is still a pretty powerful force within both unions as well. And there are also other unioons as well. Anyway, yeah, what happens next?

Also, the JNCHES bargaining round is taking a lot longer than in previous years, we've not even had a final offer yet. Am tempted to wonder if this is some kind of attempt at a stitch-up to avoid any talk of industrial action in the run-up to a GE, but I'm pretty sure that's too paranoid and that'd be a bit too complicated to actually pull off.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think this will prove one of the more emetic threads on urban

 

[hitmouse]

Well, this is an encouraging sign in terms of Unite's willingness to tell Labour to fuck off, although I'm a bit less enthusiastic if it turns out their big sticking point is Labour not being pro-oil and gas enough:

Unite union refuses to endorse Labour's election manifesto

Labour's biggest trade union backer is concerned workers' rights policies do not go far enough.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Lord Camomile]

Well, this is an encouraging sign in terms of Unite's willingness to tell Labour to fuck off, although I'm a bit less enthusiastic if it turns out their big sticking point is Labour not being pro-oil and gas enough:

Unite union refuses to endorse Labour's election manifesto

Labour's biggest trade union backer is concerned workers' rights policies do not go far enough.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yeah, that did put a rather quick dampener on things compared to when I saw the headline.

Still, at least nice to see a big union not giving Labour something for free.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, that did put a rather quick dampener on things compared to when I saw the headline.

Still, at least nice to see a big union not giving Labour something for free.

Yeah, and I don't know what the actual balance of concerns raised by Unite were - they do go on to say
"Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham had previously warned there were "no blank cheques" for Labour.

Ahead of the meeting, Unite told the BBC it wanted to see the end of zero hours contracts - and a complete ban on the practice of "hire and fire" practices where workers are fired and taken back on with worse pay and conditions.

"We go into the meeting with open hearts but girded loins," one union leader told the BBC before entering the meeting."
Which all sounds reasonable.

 

[hitmouse]

Although the Guardian report does cover much the same ground, mentions Unite not being happy about fire and rehire, zero hours... and oil and gas licenses:

Labour signs off election manifesto but Unite refuses to endorse it

Document approved at ‘clause V’ meeting despite union’s reservations about issues including fire and rehire

www.theguardian.com

 

[hitmouse]

Crossposting some relevant stuff from the main GE thread for ease of keeping track:

Will Labour rebalance the country in favour of working people? I don’t think so | Sharon Graham

I have watched as corporate lobbyists push to water down Labour’s pro-worker policies. We, the labour movement, must push back, says Unite leader Sharon Graham

www.theguardian.com

Unite may be Labour’s biggest affiliate, but our job first and foremost is to defend workers. I make no apology for holding Labour’s feet to the fire on workers’ rights – no matter how uncomfortable it might make some or what criticism is laid at my door.

Of course I want a Labour government, but that doesn’t mean I will sit on the sidelines and applaud while it caves in to the business lobby and rows back on its commitments. The Labour leadership’s penchant for reneging on promises has been a theme of its time in opposition.

The new deal for working people – first proposed in 2021 – was a good start, with promises to ban fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts and end the qualifying period for basic rights at work. But holes remained: there was still no detailed plan for the expansion of collective bargaining, which is the only tried and tested method of redistributing profits to workers.
Nevertheless, it was a strong base. But instead of building on it, the Labour party decided to unwind many of its commitments. During the national policy forum consultations where these were discussed, Unite was the only affiliate to not vote for the “new” document that day.
Reading the words on the page, it was clear to me that there were rowbacks on individual rights, including zero-hours contracts, where Labour has ultimately changed its policy from an outright ban to workers now having a theoretical right to a contract with regular hours.
But it was the tightening of the noose around the neck of new, straightforward rights to organise for trade unions that presented the clearest indication of change to me, a bureaucratic web impeding the right for a union to access a workplace in order to organise it. The corporate lobbyists were unsurprisingly gaining a foothold. The third and fourth editions of the new deal have led us down a similar path.
The imbalance in power in the workplace is borne out by two facts. First, weekly median pay for full-time workers in Britain is lower in real terms now than before Labour was elected in 1997. Second, the profit margins of the average British business have increased by 30% since before the pandemic.
Is Labour going to change in any serious way the balance of forces? I am increasingly sceptical. The rowbacks on specific issues, such as moving away from a total ban on fire and rehire, signal the direction of travel. For further evidence, look at the planned introduction of sectoral bargaining, which is now on life support.
Limited to one sector and lacking any sort of clarity as to whether actual negotiations on issues such as pay will take place, this important policy will without doubt be watered down still further as part of the much-trumpeted “consultation”. If collective bargaining is not restored to a respectable level, the new deal will not deliver real change for workers where it matters, in their pockets.
There are some who think not commenting during elections will bring dividends afterwards. I don’t think there is any evidence to support that. It is easy sometimes to overstate the power of being “allowed in the room” and easier still to sing to the choir when the stakes are low. But if we are to deliver different outcomes, not just crumbs from the Labour table, then we will need a different strategy. Now is the time to stand up and say what we believe is required to deliver real change.

If there is any lesson from the shifting sands of the faction wars within Labour, it is this. It will be up to those of us outside parliament to build for tomorrow. We have no choice other than to move the Overton window ourselves. We can’t wait for a hero to arrive or engage in futile personality politics.

NEC Report, meeting held on 23 May 2024 — Time For Real Change

1. General Secretary’s report The General Secretary raised the Local Government and Mayoral Election results, which were positive for Labour. She commented that a number of members and UNISON staff would be standing as candidates in the forthcoming general election. The General Secretary aske

timeforrealchange.uk

The General Secretary asked the NEC to invite Angela Rayner or another front bench Labour MP to address National Delegate Conference in June, explaining that it would help to strengthen the Labour Party election campaign and get rid of the Tory Government. The NEC had a comprehensive and comradely discussion on this proposal. A number of NEC members mentioned that we should only have conference addressed by MPs that voted for a ceasefire in Gaza and supported UNISON policies. This is an important issue, with 76% of the population calling for a ceasefire. The point was made that many good Labour Party activists had been expelled or resigned from the party over the position that the leadership has taken on Gaza. There were also concerns raised about the Labour Party leadership ‘rowing back’ from commitments on the New Deal For Working People. It was felt by many NEC members that we needed an MP that supported the critical SNP motion for a ceasefire. An alternative proposal was put forward, detailing that 56 Labour MPs voted to support the SNP motion on a Gaza ceasefire, and that we should invite one of these MPs. A few names were mentioned including Yasmin Qureshi and Paula Barker, the latter of whom had been a UNISON regional convenor before being elected to Parliament. The particular MP invited should be decided by the Presidential team. The NEC voted on the proposals. The General Secretary’s proposal was defeated: 24 For and 31 Against. The second proposal made by an NEC member was successful: 32 For and 21 Against, with 1 abstention.

 

[Dom Traynor]

The thing about UNISON it has two political funds the GPF and the APF or Labour Link, members get a choice of which one to opt into and generally (very broadly) people to the left tend to select the GPF as so people to the right meaning it tends to be centrists and diehard Labour who pay into Labour Link.

So UNISON's Labour Link (around one third of the actual 1.3+million members) tend to be very pro-Labour which influences the lines taken in Labour (or at least that was the case until I left the country in 2016).

That has historically been coupled with some genuinely good stuff the last Labour government did for school support staff, civilian police staff, some NHS stuff etc, they will have modest but positive expectations for this government.

I would also argue this is not all driven by bureaucrats some of the lowest paid UNISON activists always had very close relationships with MPs like David Miliband for example.

Obviously the left are bigger and stronger on the unions NEC right now than they were then but I can't imagine they are on the Labour Link Committee.

 

[hitmouse]

According to the email I got from Unison this morning, Labour's New Deal for Working People is "the strongest commitment to improving life for workers that's been put forward in generations". Which sounds lovely, shame it's obviously bollocks though.

 

[Elpenor]

I just deleted that email without reading it!

 

[Lord Camomile]

I was at UNISON NDC last week, and Wes Streeting in particular was getting such a kicking I wish I'd started a counter Generally either over his attitude to healthcare, or some reportedly transphobic comments/views (uncertainty purely down to me not being familiar with the particulars).

There was a bit of collateral friendly fire, too, with some veiled and barely-veiled nods to our Gen Sec's various photo ops with him.

The rest of the party didn't get off lightly, though, with a fair few digs going in on individuals and the party as a whole.

Likewise, a bit of range between "UNISON have connections and influence to the Labour party" to "alright, make that mean something, then" to "we should just sack 'em off already".

 

[Lord Camomile]

Ohhh, Christina, mate, you're about to get Charlie Browned so hard...

 

[The39thStep]

View attachment 431694

View attachment 431695

View attachment 431696

Ohhh, Christina, mate, you're about to get Charlie Browned so hard...

One of the most spineless union
bureaucrats you could find unfortunately.

 

[Bus Honeygun]

I'm PCS, which has never been affiliated to the Labour Party, anyway.

Not exactly something to get excited about, but whatever my misgivings I'm still looking forward to some improvement for us as a union and our members when Labour take power, because the last 14 years have been absolutely fucking awful and just the fact that the government will have the slightest hint of a positive relationship with trade unionism is a start. The Tories actively hate us as both union members and government employees, it seems.

I always had a lot of time for Mark Serwotka in particular, but I did have a wry smile when the Tories came to power, our leadership having constantly sniped and ranted at the Blair-Brown government under whom we at least had decent pay rises and the freedom to organise. In come the Conservatives and they launch a wholesale attack on our terms and conditions, pay, facility time, headcount of members (and therefore income) and right to strike, leaving PCS leadership looking like lampstands.

 

[The39thStep]

I'm PCS, which has never been affiliated to the Labour Party, anyway.

Not exactly something to get excited about, but whatever my misgivings I'm still looking forward to some improvement for us as a union and our members when Labour take power, because the last 14 years have been absolutely fucking awful and just the fact that the government will have the slightest hint of a positive relationship with trade unionism is a start. The Tories actively hate us as both union members and government employees, it seems.

I always had a lot of time for Mark Serwotka in particular, but I did have a wry smile when the Tories came to power, our leadership having constantly sniped and ranted at the Blair-Brown government under whom we at least had decent pay rises and the freedom to organise. In come the Conservatives and they launch a wholesale attack on our terms and conditions, pay, facility time, headcount of members (and therefore income) and right to strike, leaving PCS leadership looking like lampstands.

Weren't the PCS , like other public sector unions out on strike over pay, cuts and pensions under Blair's government? Fedayn

 

[Bus Honeygun]

Weren't the PCS , like other public sector unions out on strike over pay, cuts and pensions under Blair's government?

Certainly remember striking over pay in my department. We got a big increase.

 

[hitmouse]

Ongoing doctors' dispute will be one of the obvious early tests for a Starmer government, saw the Guardian put out this hitpiece ahead of the latest wave of strikes - I would've thought that if you had criticisms of an ongoing strike you would raise those criticisms in internal discussions and not run your mouth to the media, but hey what do I know? Anyway, presume the dead hand of Labour is behind this to some extent:

Junior doctors strike in England despite risk of scoring ‘own goal’

About 25,000 BMA members begin five-day action at 7am that some union leaders say will achieve little

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dom Traynor]

Ongoing doctors' dispute will be one of the obvious early tests for a Starmer government, saw the Guardian put out this hitpiece ahead of the latest wave of strikes - I would've thought that if you had criticisms of an ongoing strike you would raise those criticisms in internal discussions and not run your mouth to the media, but hey what do I know? Anyway, presume the dead hand of Labour is behind this to some extent:

Junior doctors strike in England despite risk of scoring ‘own goal’

About 25,000 BMA members begin five-day action at 7am that some union leaders say will achieve little

www.theguardian.com

Labour don't need to encourage the Guardian to diss striking unionists. Also I would agree with those internal people that it would make strategic sense to hold off and give the government a week to deliver what they want.

Bad form to brief the press and show division though.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah, was thinking less about the Guardian's motivations and more what led the BMA sources to brief against their own union that way - guessing it must have something to do with hoping for a cosy relationship with "Wes" from next week onwards?

 

[Dom Traynor]

Yeah, was thinking less about the Guardian's motivations and more what led the BMA sources to brief against their own union that way - guessing it must have something to do with hoping for a cosy relationship with "Wes" from next week onwards?

Maybe. Maybe it's some internal power struggle. I would imagine the actual leadership would be keen for a pragmatic relationship with the health minister because it can be helpful especially under Labour governments, and the BMAs job is not to transform society but to get the best deal for their members and the first week of the new government would be a good chance to do it.

 

[Fedayn]

I'm PCS, which has never been affiliated to the Labour Party, anyway.

Not exactly something to get excited about, but whatever my misgivings I'm still looking forward to some improvement for us as a union and our members when Labour take power, because the last 14 years have been absolutely fucking awful and just the fact that the government will have the slightest hint of a positive relationship with trade unionism is a start. The Tories actively hate us as both union members and government employees, it seems.

I always had a lot of time for Mark Serwotka in particular, but I did have a wry smile when the Tories came to power, our leadership having constantly sniped and ranted at the Blair-Brown government under whom we at least had decent pay rises and the freedom to organise. In come the Conservatives and they launch a wholesale attack on our terms and conditions, pay, facility time, headcount of members (and therefore income) and right to strike, leaving PCS leadership looking like lampstands.

Bizarrely, the biggest pay rises we have had in recent years, especially DWP staff and Nationally have been under the Tories. We were part of a Public Sector strike in 2011 but we went out on strike on numerous occasions under Blair and Brown. Also, back in 2010 Brown, to cheers from the Labour benches behind him talked of getting rid of 100,000 civil service jobs.....