Unison General Secretary Election

[johnfricker]

Now and again I take a look at 'Jon's Union Blog' to see what's going on in the union I belonged to for 20+ years. Jon is currently blogging about the forthcoming election for General Secretary: http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ho-to.html . This is a chance for disgruntled Unison members to tell the union that they aren't happy with its policy of surrendering council workers' pay to achieve equal pay and that they aren't happy that it continues to bankroll a Labour Party which acts against their interests.

[Jim]

Same old story, three left candidiates, which will split the vote against Prentis and allow him to be re-elected.

[Badger]

I agree Jim. It has always been the problem with left-wing challenges - internal disagreements leading to the movement shooting itself in the foot. Although I hesitate to call these candidates 'leftist' - it makes them sound extremist and I don't believe any of their proposals are. They are just standing up for basic trade union principles. If anything it's the current incumbents who are the extremists - essentially career politicians who have moved far from the fundamental tenets of trade unionism.
The most established of these candidates (having previously challenged for the position of General Secretary and having gradually increased his support) is Roger Bannister and I am in no doubt that he will attract considerably more votes than the other two. I just hope that enough Unison members take the time to consider their vote and not just blindly vote according to the recommendation of their local branch - most of whom will have been happy to 'toe the party line' and sell their members down the 'single status river' in recent times. If any member reading this has been negatively affected by single status job evaluations - now is your chance to punish the prats who instigated and supported it. My advice would be to vote for Roger Bannister - and get your Unison colleagues to do the same. Spread the word!

[bill]

The Unison house journal "In Focus" carries an article advising us that the NEC has nominated Prentis. The names of other candidates don`t get a mention. Who edits this rag? Alistair Campbell?

[johnfricker]

Roger Bannister:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articl ... -bannister

[Badger]

The Unison house journal "In Focus" carries an article advising us that the NEC has nominated Prentis. The names of other candidates don`t get a mention. Who edits this rag? Alistair Campbell?

When I was in Stockport we were visited by a Unison Regional Officer to try to quell our qualms concerning Single Status. He explained that he expected roughly a third of members to have their pay cut, a third to stay the same and a third to get cuts. I complained that simply putting this to a vote of members, without actively recommending rejection, would lead to acceptance (based on the assumption that those avoiding getting a cut would vote to accept out of a sense of relief).
His response to this was that it was quite right that there should be a free vote as Unison was a democratic union and we were not living in a Stalinist state.

And yet, here we have a union that:
* Bans free discussion of a key issue (Single Status) at national conference;
* Launches a witch-hunt against "dissidents" (Greenwich Unison reps who tried to stand up for their members and refused to toe the 'party line');
* Circulates a publication to members implying that in the forthcoming election the incumbent is standing for re-election unopposed.

Sounds to me like Uncle Joe would have been impressed!

[johnfricker]

When I was in Stockport we were visited by a Unison Regional Officer to try to quell our qualms concerning Single Status.

He explained that he expected roughly a third of members to have their pay cut, a third to stay the same and a third to get cuts.

Aren't those mutually exclusive, Badger? I suppose he also explained the union's failure to defend pay by referring to the usual cr*p about the legal advice it had received that pay cuts are required by the Equal Pay Act.

[Badger]

The most worrying thing was that he didn't feel the need to defend it at all. He proudly boasted that whilst our council had been dragging its heels over the Single Status job evaluations, Unison had threatened legal action to ensure it happened as soon as possible. He said this is such a bombastic way that I honestly think he expected us to break into applause!
The 'third will lose/third will stay the same/third will gain' scenario is actually dismissed a inaccurate on Unison's site, but the fact that a paid union official should consider that an acceptable outcome (i.e. getting his own members to foot the bill for historical pay iniquities) is mystifying to me.