Lambeth Unison has passed this motion in support of South London Anti-Fascist Group (for Facebook group see here) and the new, working class-based national anti-fascist network Stop Racism and Fascism (see website and Facebook). We urge other union branches and campaigns to do likewise.
**
We note
1. The existence of a South London Anti-Fascist Group sponsored by Battersea and Wandsworth Trades council.
2. The good work this group has done, particularly in helping activists to build a strong anti-fascist campaign in the BNP target-area of Merton.
We further note
1. The launching of a new anti-fascist network, Stop Racism and Fascism, which raises slogans like "Jobs and homes, not racism" and "Black and white, British-born and migrant, all religions and none - workers unite and fight". The network seeks to build an anti-fascist movement which fights for positive, working-class solutions to the problems the fascists exploit (cuts, unemployment, lack of housing and services), and which is open and democratic.
2. That it is supported by anti-fascist groups across the country, including in London, Nottingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Derby and Lincoln. The South London group sent a delegate to its first conference in Nottingham and to its first steering committee.
We believe
1. That while the BNP took a knock in the recent elections, it still received hundreds of thousands of votes and is almost certainly still growing. In an economic crisis and in the face of the huge cuts planned by the coalition government, a strong working-class anti-fascist movement is needed more than ever.
We resolve
1. To formally sponsor South London Anti-Fascist Group, donate £50 and send delegates to its next meeting on 14 June.
2. To formally sponsor the Stop Racism and Fascism network and send a delegate to its next steering committee.
3. To organise a meeting for members with speakers from SRF, Unite Against Fascism and Hope Not Hate as well as a debate on our No Platform policy.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Thursday, 3 June 2010
UNISON: who is really "self-serving"?
UNISON Active bills itself as "the first port of call for rank-and-file UNISON news and activities", "supporting a trade union that is committed to a fundamental change in society and that puts the interests and values of working people at its heart". In fact it is rumoured to be written by full-time officials and acts as the mouthpiece as the mouthpiece of UNISON's right-wing, class-collaborationist, witch-hunting bureaucracy.
In an article entitled "The self-serving conceit of a worker's wage", UNISON Active condemns left-wing general secretary candidates Paul Holmes (United Left) and Roger Bannister (Socialist Party) for their pledge to take only an average worker's wage if elected and their criticism of Dave Prentis' huge salary and perks.
1. "The ultra left candidates [present themselves] as ordinary ‘rank and file’ members when manifestly it is not the case. Both candidates opposing Dave Prentis have been seconded to full time union duties for decades and are paid on Principal Officer grades. They are among the top 10% earners in local government."
Being on 100 percent facility time and working in a branch as a locally elected officer, after working on the 'shopfloor', is not quite the same as being the union's top full-time official after never having worked in the industry it organises!
(That is before you compare what Holmes and Prentis have actually achieved: a strong union branch which has won major improvements for its members versus a national union more interested in witch-hunting socialists than organising or defending its members from the most savage attacks.)
On pay, the article is even more disingenuous. It's like the Evening Standard using the relatively high wages Tube drivers have won to justify bankers' bonuses.
Salaries for the PO grades in Kirklees council are between £28,000 and £51,000. Clearly this is more than most Unison members get. However: we haven't checked yet, but is it very unlikely that Paul Holmes is anywhere near the top end of that range - whereas in 2008-9 Dave Prentis was paid more than £92,000, with more than £11,000 expenses.
In any case, Paul Holmes has pledged to take only something between £25,000 and £30,000 if elected.
2. "It is contemptible that one of the candidates combines the employer’s pension contribution to give the false impression that the salary of the UNISON General Secretary is over £120,000. Unlike his opponents, the salary of Dave Prentis is a matter of public record" (the article then links to the website of the Certification Officer, the government official who registers trade unions).
That's how UNISON Active chooses to present it. The point is that Prentis receives £127,436 (£92,187 salary, £23,603 pension contributions, £11,646 expenses and car benefit) from the union. That's as much in pension contributions as the average UNISON member probably takes home before tax!
Those are the figures for 2008-9. We'll see how things have developed when the Certification Officer brings out this year's report.
3. "No rational trade union negotiator would say that UNISON - a complex UK wide organisation with over 1.35m members and 1200 staff – is paying its Principal Officer excessively or out of line with all other trade unions."
It's certainly not out of line with other trade unions - unsurprisingly, since all the unions are run by a self-serving bureaucracy. (On which, see 4 below).
Why does it follow from the fact that UNISON is a large, complex organisation that its Principal Officer should be on many times the salary of most of his members? Isn't that the same argument the bankers and bosses use to justify their huge salaries and out-of-control bonuses?
Do we really want unions where one of the reasons to run for high office is the possibility of becoming wealthy?
Do we really want unions where the top officials have a standard of living more similar to that of the bosses, and have lost all real memory of what workers' lives are like (not that Dave Prentis was ever a worker!), and cannot empathise with the situation most of their members face?
4. Unfortunately the article then goes to score a point against the left - due to the behaviour of the Socialist Party.
It reports how at last week's PCS conference, the SP-dominated executive opposed and defeated a motion which instructed "the NEC to immediately commence negotations with the GMB with the aim of ensuring that full time-officer pay rates in PCS are much closer to the pay received by the majority of PCS members."
UNISON Active comments: "That’s what happens when easy, populist, rhetoric hits the hard wall of organisational reality."
Socialist Party members should think very carefully about how their organisation's behaviour in PCS is providing political ammunition for the same right-wing bureaucrats who are witch-hunting their comrades in UNISON.
In an article entitled "The self-serving conceit of a worker's wage", UNISON Active condemns left-wing general secretary candidates Paul Holmes (United Left) and Roger Bannister (Socialist Party) for their pledge to take only an average worker's wage if elected and their criticism of Dave Prentis' huge salary and perks.
1. "The ultra left candidates [present themselves] as ordinary ‘rank and file’ members when manifestly it is not the case. Both candidates opposing Dave Prentis have been seconded to full time union duties for decades and are paid on Principal Officer grades. They are among the top 10% earners in local government."
Being on 100 percent facility time and working in a branch as a locally elected officer, after working on the 'shopfloor', is not quite the same as being the union's top full-time official after never having worked in the industry it organises!
(That is before you compare what Holmes and Prentis have actually achieved: a strong union branch which has won major improvements for its members versus a national union more interested in witch-hunting socialists than organising or defending its members from the most savage attacks.)
On pay, the article is even more disingenuous. It's like the Evening Standard using the relatively high wages Tube drivers have won to justify bankers' bonuses.
Salaries for the PO grades in Kirklees council are between £28,000 and £51,000. Clearly this is more than most Unison members get. However: we haven't checked yet, but is it very unlikely that Paul Holmes is anywhere near the top end of that range - whereas in 2008-9 Dave Prentis was paid more than £92,000, with more than £11,000 expenses.
In any case, Paul Holmes has pledged to take only something between £25,000 and £30,000 if elected.
2. "It is contemptible that one of the candidates combines the employer’s pension contribution to give the false impression that the salary of the UNISON General Secretary is over £120,000. Unlike his opponents, the salary of Dave Prentis is a matter of public record" (the article then links to the website of the Certification Officer, the government official who registers trade unions).
That's how UNISON Active chooses to present it. The point is that Prentis receives £127,436 (£92,187 salary, £23,603 pension contributions, £11,646 expenses and car benefit) from the union. That's as much in pension contributions as the average UNISON member probably takes home before tax!
Those are the figures for 2008-9. We'll see how things have developed when the Certification Officer brings out this year's report.
3. "No rational trade union negotiator would say that UNISON - a complex UK wide organisation with over 1.35m members and 1200 staff – is paying its Principal Officer excessively or out of line with all other trade unions."
It's certainly not out of line with other trade unions - unsurprisingly, since all the unions are run by a self-serving bureaucracy. (On which, see 4 below).
Why does it follow from the fact that UNISON is a large, complex organisation that its Principal Officer should be on many times the salary of most of his members? Isn't that the same argument the bankers and bosses use to justify their huge salaries and out-of-control bonuses?
Do we really want unions where one of the reasons to run for high office is the possibility of becoming wealthy?
Do we really want unions where the top officials have a standard of living more similar to that of the bosses, and have lost all real memory of what workers' lives are like (not that Dave Prentis was ever a worker!), and cannot empathise with the situation most of their members face?
4. Unfortunately the article then goes to score a point against the left - due to the behaviour of the Socialist Party.
It reports how at last week's PCS conference, the SP-dominated executive opposed and defeated a motion which instructed "the NEC to immediately commence negotations with the GMB with the aim of ensuring that full time-officer pay rates in PCS are much closer to the pay received by the majority of PCS members."
UNISON Active comments: "That’s what happens when easy, populist, rhetoric hits the hard wall of organisational reality."
Socialist Party members should think very carefully about how their organisation's behaviour in PCS is providing political ammunition for the same right-wing bureaucrats who are witch-hunting their comrades in UNISON.
Monday, 26 April 2010
Lambeth Labour Blasted Over Living Wage Lies
On Saturday afternoon in the centre of Brixton, an event to demand the Living Wage for Lambeth organised by the South London and Lambeth sections of London Citizens. A large crowd had gathered, representing churches and mosques in Lambeth.
The political glitterati had also appeared – Tessa Jowell, Chukka Umunna (Labour candidate for Streatham and sometimes called the ‘British Obama’) Chris Nicholson (Lib Dem candidate for Streatham) the Labour Council Leader, Steve Reed and the Lib Dem group leader, Ashley Lumsden – no sign of the Tories.
Green Party Councillor, Becca Thackeray, had put a motion to Lambeth over a year ago asking for the Living Wage for contracted staff etc but it had been blocked by Labour.
However, when London Citizens announced that Lambeth’s contracted staff were not receiving a Living Wage – they produced a cleaner from Brixton Market, who told how he was trying to live on £100 per week and had a child to support also.
The Council Leader’s face was a joy to behold. But better was to come. As each politician placed a symbolic ballot paper into a box indicating that they would support the LW in Lambeth, they were addressed by a young Muslim activist from LondonCitizens who read out a formal statement.
As Reed prepared to pledge to vote, the LC speaker addressed him saying: “Cllr Reed, you told us some months ago that all contracted staff in Lambeth were paid a Living Wage but we have found out that this is not the case. We met with the Head of Procurement and she told us that Veolia staff are not receiving it.” Once again he looked stunned and his Cabinet Member for Finances, who was standing nearby was panicking. He then addressed the crowd and said that the only reason Lambeth had not paid the LW was because the previous administration had not placed it in the contract and this meant that they had to wait for a new contract.
This is not at all the case and a clause could have been placed in the contract for a Living Wage. Clearly the Cllr Reed was trying to wriggle out of his past and he then signed up to the promise to introduce the LW for all contracted staff, as did the Lib Dems.
Tessa Jowell tried to rescue the situation by stating that the Labour Party’s manifesto was calling for a Living Wage for all staff (cleaners etc) employed at Whitehall. Why this was not done before now? Ken Livingstone introduced the policy years ago.
The political glitterati had also appeared – Tessa Jowell, Chukka Umunna (Labour candidate for Streatham and sometimes called the ‘British Obama’) Chris Nicholson (Lib Dem candidate for Streatham) the Labour Council Leader, Steve Reed and the Lib Dem group leader, Ashley Lumsden – no sign of the Tories.
Green Party Councillor, Becca Thackeray, had put a motion to Lambeth over a year ago asking for the Living Wage for contracted staff etc but it had been blocked by Labour.
However, when London Citizens announced that Lambeth’s contracted staff were not receiving a Living Wage – they produced a cleaner from Brixton Market, who told how he was trying to live on £100 per week and had a child to support also.
The Council Leader’s face was a joy to behold. But better was to come. As each politician placed a symbolic ballot paper into a box indicating that they would support the LW in Lambeth, they were addressed by a young Muslim activist from LondonCitizens who read out a formal statement.
As Reed prepared to pledge to vote, the LC speaker addressed him saying: “Cllr Reed, you told us some months ago that all contracted staff in Lambeth were paid a Living Wage but we have found out that this is not the case. We met with the Head of Procurement and she told us that Veolia staff are not receiving it.” Once again he looked stunned and his Cabinet Member for Finances, who was standing nearby was panicking. He then addressed the crowd and said that the only reason Lambeth had not paid the LW was because the previous administration had not placed it in the contract and this meant that they had to wait for a new contract.
This is not at all the case and a clause could have been placed in the contract for a Living Wage. Clearly the Cllr Reed was trying to wriggle out of his past and he then signed up to the promise to introduce the LW for all contracted staff, as did the Lib Dems.
Tessa Jowell tried to rescue the situation by stating that the Labour Party’s manifesto was calling for a Living Wage for all staff (cleaners etc) employed at Whitehall. Why this was not done before now? Ken Livingstone introduced the policy years ago.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Anticapitalist Manifesto Online
The Anticapitalist Manifesto, Drinkall for Vauxhall: for the millions, not the millionaires is now online!
You can view it by going to Workers Power.
All feedback welcome!
You can view it by going to Workers Power.
All feedback welcome!
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Lambeth Labour manifesto threatens to sack ALMO
"We will give Lambeth Living 12 months tp improve quality of repairs , reduce the time taken to re-let empty homes , keep rent rises down and improve the service to leaseholders or we will sack them and put the service under new management."
This comes from an administration which told us that ALMOs bring a more efficient service than in directly managed authorities!
It is not clear whether this means bringing the housing managment back in-house under direct council control or whether it means continuing with the partially privatised arrangement under a new leadership.
Get your fellow tenants and election candidates to sign up to the Manifesto for Council Housing launched at the recent Defend Council Housing conference - go to www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk for more details.
This comes from an administration which told us that ALMOs bring a more efficient service than in directly managed authorities!
It is not clear whether this means bringing the housing managment back in-house under direct council control or whether it means continuing with the partially privatised arrangement under a new leadership.
Get your fellow tenants and election candidates to sign up to the Manifesto for Council Housing launched at the recent Defend Council Housing conference - go to www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk for more details.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Lambeth UNISON Election Vote Vetoed
The Unison website states that "UNISON is a member led democratic organisation".
However, a motion passed at a recent Lambeth UNISON Branch Committee, calling for an indicative vote at a hustings of local general election candidates, has been vetoed by UNISON's largely unelected regional bureaucracy.
Lambeth Activists have long campaigned for the democratisation of political funding in order for workers to advance their collective interests, rather than blindly fund a Labour Party that has publically promised to "cut deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher".
A motion previously submitted to Lambeth UNISON's Branch Committee, calling for the formation of a local voluntary political fund had already been vetoed. An amended motion was then passed calling for a hustings after which an indicative vote would be held.
An (unelected) regional officer has since advised Lambeth UNISON that to even conduct a show of hands at a hustings to gauge support for political candidates, could be in breach of national rules. "Rule J" states that political support and resources may only be given to the Labour Party through the Labour Link. This is despite the fact that the majority of members in Lambeth and nationally in UNISON have opted not to support to the Labour Party!
What then for the right of these members to collectively advance their interests in the political arena? It seems that Unison is not as "member led" as it claims to be.
However, a motion passed at a recent Lambeth UNISON Branch Committee, calling for an indicative vote at a hustings of local general election candidates, has been vetoed by UNISON's largely unelected regional bureaucracy.
Lambeth Activists have long campaigned for the democratisation of political funding in order for workers to advance their collective interests, rather than blindly fund a Labour Party that has publically promised to "cut deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher".
A motion previously submitted to Lambeth UNISON's Branch Committee, calling for the formation of a local voluntary political fund had already been vetoed. An amended motion was then passed calling for a hustings after which an indicative vote would be held.
An (unelected) regional officer has since advised Lambeth UNISON that to even conduct a show of hands at a hustings to gauge support for political candidates, could be in breach of national rules. "Rule J" states that political support and resources may only be given to the Labour Party through the Labour Link. This is despite the fact that the majority of members in Lambeth and nationally in UNISON have opted not to support to the Labour Party!
What then for the right of these members to collectively advance their interests in the political arena? It seems that Unison is not as "member led" as it claims to be.
Local Trade Unionists Stand for Parliament
Voters in the Vauxhall constituency of London will get the chance to vote for socialist alternatives to New Labour in May, with two trade unionists running against Labour MP Kate Hoey.
Jeremy Drinkall from Workers Power will be standing on an anticapitalist manifesto, saying on the streets and doorsteps that ordinary people should not pay for an economic crisis caused by the rich.
Jeremy, who is a teaching assistant at a local school, plays an active role as a Unison shop steward in Lambeth. He has taken part in local efforts to protect council housing and is on the steering committee of the national Right to Work campaign which fights against unemployment. Jeremy has long contributed to the work of Lambeth Activists in the local community.
Joseph Healy has been elected by Lambeth Green Party to stand as the Parliamentary Candidate for the Vauxhall Constituency at the next general election.
He is currently Male Co-Convenor of Green Left, the ecosocialist, anti-capitalist platform within the Green Party. He is also the Green Party's delegate to the Stop the War Coalition and an active anti-war campaigner. Joseph has also supported the work of Lambeth Activists, and indeed joined Local Government workers on the picket lines at Brixton Town Hall in 2008. He is also an active member of Unison.
We hope that residents of Vauxhall consider voting for one of these candidates with the aim of building a strong and democratic socialist movement in Lambeth, independent of political and industrial elites.
Whilst trade union bureaucrats are still trying to trick workers into voting for yet more job, pay and service cuts under Labour, Vauxhall residents can now use their vote to protect public services, the environment and the rights of trade unions to organise.
Jeremy Drinkall from Workers Power will be standing on an anticapitalist manifesto, saying on the streets and doorsteps that ordinary people should not pay for an economic crisis caused by the rich.
Jeremy, who is a teaching assistant at a local school, plays an active role as a Unison shop steward in Lambeth. He has taken part in local efforts to protect council housing and is on the steering committee of the national Right to Work campaign which fights against unemployment. Jeremy has long contributed to the work of Lambeth Activists in the local community.
Joseph Healy has been elected by Lambeth Green Party to stand as the Parliamentary Candidate for the Vauxhall Constituency at the next general election.
He is currently Male Co-Convenor of Green Left, the ecosocialist, anti-capitalist platform within the Green Party. He is also the Green Party's delegate to the Stop the War Coalition and an active anti-war campaigner. Joseph has also supported the work of Lambeth Activists, and indeed joined Local Government workers on the picket lines at Brixton Town Hall in 2008. He is also an active member of Unison.
We hope that residents of Vauxhall consider voting for one of these candidates with the aim of building a strong and democratic socialist movement in Lambeth, independent of political and industrial elites.
Whilst trade union bureaucrats are still trying to trick workers into voting for yet more job, pay and service cuts under Labour, Vauxhall residents can now use their vote to protect public services, the environment and the rights of trade unions to organise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
