Hoping to claw back some semblance of control as the Falkirk debacle unfolds, Ed Miliband has launched a "reform" of trade union levies going into the Labour Party.
Whilst the aim of "opting-in" is entirely laudable, and to a certain degree already operates in practice within UNISON, a key statistic not widely reported in the media is that over 360,000 UNITE members do not pay the political levy to Labour.
Other Trade Unions correctly take the view that their political fund should be used to fund campaigns of candidates of various political parties - for example the Fire Brigades Union who have funded campaigns of the last two parliamentary elections campaigns I have been involved in. The RMT similarly fund campaigns in this way, both unions choosing to support candidates who have a track record in supporting fairness at work.
The problem,( depending on your point of view), is that explicitly funding a candidate of a political party other than that of the Labour party results in that trade union being expelled by Labour.
I am prepared to wager that the above scenario will remain the case in this so-called Labour reform.
UNITE have a point when they criticise their arch-nemesis Progress for indulging in the same sort of candidate fixing that they are accused of in the Falkirk case. Actually, a glance at any Left labour blogs can provide chapter and verse on the inglorious history of New Labour fixing to purge any candidates with anything other than strict adherence to centre right orthodoxies. Ironic that Falkirk is the seat under the spotlight as the deliberate exclusion of Denis Canavan in the run up to 1999 is the prime example of this so the double think airbrushing of history that the current leadership are hoping to achieve.
All of which leads to the following conclusions;
Firstly with New Labour, supporters of austerity, taking a similar path to the Tory-led Government, why shouldn't trade unions, in this age of multi-party politics not fund campaigns of those seeking political office whose views and values are sympathetic to the Trade Union Movement - SNP, Plaid Cymru, the various Socialist Parties, and indeed Labour candidates. It's tempting to label those as "what's left of the left" in the Labour party, but it's simplistic and trite to label those who support workers rights, decent working conditions and fair pay as "Left" - but let's leave challenging the language of the right wing media for another day.
Secondly, if candidate fixing is ok for Progress and not the Trade Unions, what legitimate voice and role remains for the trade union movement in todays British Labour Party?
Thirdly, if this is a step to reduce trade union influence (openly admitted by the leadership) then surely it is time for unions to look elsewhere? Members may wonder what precisely their hard earned subs are going toward if unions will carry less influence than a think tank or lobbying firm when looking to advance their cause of protecting jobs and conditions ?
Surely now, more than ever, it is time for trade unions to ditch New Labour.
Showing posts with label Workers Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workers Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
Monday, 8 July 2013
ITS TIME FOR BETTER WORKERS RIGHTS
As someone who started working when Thatcher was Prime
Minister the EU was looked upon as the saviour of public sector workers as TUPE
provided a degree of protection against Thatcherism, however conversely Europe
took a rightward shift.
As austerity has kicked in an assault on workers’ rights has
taken place, most notably by an ideological right wing government at
Westminster who have removed health and safety protection and cut the statutory
redundancy notice period to 45 days.
As casualisation increases the EU need to protect working
people in Europe.
We need to create a set of core standards that apply to all
workers. We also need to address the EU
Posted Workers Directive to ensure that migrant workers are paid the same rates
of pay, thus closing a loophole in which companies choose migrant workers to
drive down wages.
Thursday, 23 May 2013
The Level of Debate
The news that ASLEF have showed their hand by formally backing the No Campaign - whilst disappointing, is no surprise given they were already providing financial support.
I am not sure what mechanisms of consultation were used to engage their membership, but I find the claim that not one member will vote for Independence incredibly silly.
Other Trade Unions are correctly taking a longer term view and engaging with their members through the STUC "A Just Scotland" consultation, which correctly challenges all sides of the debate to demonstrate how the options will benefit the lives of working people.
But lets come back to ASLEF. Simple research uncovers a rather offensive article in their Newsletter last year, where a certain Tom Burns of their Perth Branch wrote in inflammatory terms.
Among the gems of criticism were
(a) no guarantees that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth would be head of state in an Independent Scotland
(b) the stated intentions of multinationals to relocate south of the border - without naming anyone in particular
(c) That Holyrood is a single legislative chamber with no checks and balances - but the devolved parliament isn't a stand alone institution and ignores the ongoing debate about where powers should sit at an even further local level in Scotland
(d) That the SNP Government discriminates against English Students - ignoring legal context
(e) The SNP is anti-English - despite the existence of English born parliamentarians and Government Ministers and activists who are entirely comfortable with campaigning for independence - as it's about the right to self-determination not tribalism
It is of course the prerogative of ASLEF to publish such arrant nonsense, but leaves serious questions as to why such an article would find itself in a Trade Union news sheet, as is the decision to show their hand in the constitutional debate now.
Interestingly the debate within the Trade Unions is beginning to heat up after STUC Congress and UK Conferences due to take place over the Summer.
The Jimmy Reid Foundation also has very useful suggestions, in its new document "The Common Weal", on the type of economic and social renewal that can take place in Scotland - looking at examples in the Nordic and Germanic countries. Dealing with issues such as Tax reform, welfare, a proper investment bank, and various models of company ownership are just some of the issues which should lead the debate over the next year or so within the Trade Union Movement.
The level of the debate within Trade Unions has the capacity to lead the way, and perhaps ASLEF will regret showing their hand and their arguments so early on - as all it would take to completely undermine their stance is for one single ASLEF member to come forward and express their support for independence.
I am not sure what mechanisms of consultation were used to engage their membership, but I find the claim that not one member will vote for Independence incredibly silly.
Other Trade Unions are correctly taking a longer term view and engaging with their members through the STUC "A Just Scotland" consultation, which correctly challenges all sides of the debate to demonstrate how the options will benefit the lives of working people.
But lets come back to ASLEF. Simple research uncovers a rather offensive article in their Newsletter last year, where a certain Tom Burns of their Perth Branch wrote in inflammatory terms.
Among the gems of criticism were
(a) no guarantees that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth would be head of state in an Independent Scotland
(b) the stated intentions of multinationals to relocate south of the border - without naming anyone in particular
(c) That Holyrood is a single legislative chamber with no checks and balances - but the devolved parliament isn't a stand alone institution and ignores the ongoing debate about where powers should sit at an even further local level in Scotland
(d) That the SNP Government discriminates against English Students - ignoring legal context
(e) The SNP is anti-English - despite the existence of English born parliamentarians and Government Ministers and activists who are entirely comfortable with campaigning for independence - as it's about the right to self-determination not tribalism
It is of course the prerogative of ASLEF to publish such arrant nonsense, but leaves serious questions as to why such an article would find itself in a Trade Union news sheet, as is the decision to show their hand in the constitutional debate now.
Interestingly the debate within the Trade Unions is beginning to heat up after STUC Congress and UK Conferences due to take place over the Summer.
The Jimmy Reid Foundation also has very useful suggestions, in its new document "The Common Weal", on the type of economic and social renewal that can take place in Scotland - looking at examples in the Nordic and Germanic countries. Dealing with issues such as Tax reform, welfare, a proper investment bank, and various models of company ownership are just some of the issues which should lead the debate over the next year or so within the Trade Union Movement.
The level of the debate within Trade Unions has the capacity to lead the way, and perhaps ASLEF will regret showing their hand and their arguments so early on - as all it would take to completely undermine their stance is for one single ASLEF member to come forward and express their support for independence.
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
A Dark Day for Labour
A dark day for Labour and even worse for the vulnerable.............
This was the statement made to me earlier today on Twitter from Lynn Henderson, Scottish Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union. (and best wishes to civil service workers on strike tomorrow).
Todays vote in the House of Commons which saw the Labour Front Bench abstain from the Workfare vote was yet another dull thud on the bruised body of the wider labour movement. A timely reminder that the shiny shiny New Labour bureaucrats still have their clammy hands on the tiller to make sure that their managerial agenda for servicing business first, working people second, isn't too compromised in opposition by such tricky things as principled positions.
To stand back whilst the Tory Government unilaterally and retrospectively change the law to ensure the continuation of unpaid labour, and see workers wages undercut by Workfare is a dereliction of duty and against the very principles of the Labour Movement and the historic aims of the Labour Party.
Todays events remind me of Jimmy Reid when he said "I didnt leave the Labour Party, the Labour Party left me", I am sure that there are many who feel like that today. Co-inciding with the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War , it's an unfortunate reminder for many who've stuck with the party despite everything - it's not that there ever was a golden age and the battles between left and right in the party are legendary, but the rights of working people were one of the key principles that the 20th century Labour movement held dear and fought hard for. The Labour party in the 21st century is a different construct and no amount of singing the Red Flag and celebrating its history can hide that, waving banners and turning out to parade on May Day is a faint echo of past struggle rather than a proud celebration of current principles. (With some exceptions that prove the rule).
The Labour Party has a great history, but surely now for many - the party is over
This was the statement made to me earlier today on Twitter from Lynn Henderson, Scottish Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union. (and best wishes to civil service workers on strike tomorrow).
Todays vote in the House of Commons which saw the Labour Front Bench abstain from the Workfare vote was yet another dull thud on the bruised body of the wider labour movement. A timely reminder that the shiny shiny New Labour bureaucrats still have their clammy hands on the tiller to make sure that their managerial agenda for servicing business first, working people second, isn't too compromised in opposition by such tricky things as principled positions.
To stand back whilst the Tory Government unilaterally and retrospectively change the law to ensure the continuation of unpaid labour, and see workers wages undercut by Workfare is a dereliction of duty and against the very principles of the Labour Movement and the historic aims of the Labour Party.
Todays events remind me of Jimmy Reid when he said "I didnt leave the Labour Party, the Labour Party left me", I am sure that there are many who feel like that today. Co-inciding with the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War , it's an unfortunate reminder for many who've stuck with the party despite everything - it's not that there ever was a golden age and the battles between left and right in the party are legendary, but the rights of working people were one of the key principles that the 20th century Labour movement held dear and fought hard for. The Labour party in the 21st century is a different construct and no amount of singing the Red Flag and celebrating its history can hide that, waving banners and turning out to parade on May Day is a faint echo of past struggle rather than a proud celebration of current principles. (With some exceptions that prove the rule).
The Labour Party has a great history, but surely now for many - the party is over
WESTMINSTER FAIL - WORKERS RIGHTS
Blogging has been lighter than I would have liked with the touring of Constituencies around the country, which I have found enjoyable, and the good camaraderie with the other Candidates.
It is to my complete astonishment that I read this week, that the Labour Front Bench abstained on a vote to remove from 2500 PCS members, the right to strike in Customs and Immigration.
The honourable John McDonnell probably puts it best when he says
"This is the first time in the Labour Movement - the first time ever in the history of the Labour Party - that his party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights for trade unionists"
Had it not been for John McDonnell's intervention the Labour Front Bench would have supported the measure!
News also reaches me that the Labour front bench are likely to abstain in tomorrow's vote on Workfare.
What on earth is going on?
Have we really reached a point for no return where the Labour Party at Westminster now see the rights of workers and Trade Unions as expendable? Are they so cautious and sensitive to accusations of "Red Ed" being held hostage by the unions that they are prepared to sit back and let those self same members who actively support the Labour party (by choice and opt-in) through the trade union levy go to the wall ?
This is the enduring mystery at the heart of the Labour party - significant sums of money and resource support the party and individual MP's, MSP's, councillors and constituency parties - cheques written from political funds established though the political levy from the wages of many low paid workers. And what exactly do they get in return for all this support - other than warm words ("Comrades .. as a democratic socialist of course I support you..But...) and cool distance when councils set budgets, and parliamentarians cast their vote.
This ideological right wing Coalition Government must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Who do working people support now.
Westminster has failed working people. If the Government and the main opposition cannot protect workers, then surely only Independence can.
Only the SNP support the removal of anti-TU laws, with the rights of workers to begin on day one of their employment.
Surely now, only Independence can protect workers in Scotland through the European Social Chapter, which the Tories are desperate to ditch.
I would encourage everyone to sign up to Trade Unions for YES - facebook page up and running.
Westminster has repeatedly failed in the protection of working people in Scotland.
It is to my complete astonishment that I read this week, that the Labour Front Bench abstained on a vote to remove from 2500 PCS members, the right to strike in Customs and Immigration.
The honourable John McDonnell probably puts it best when he says
"This is the first time in the Labour Movement - the first time ever in the history of the Labour Party - that his party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights for trade unionists"
Had it not been for John McDonnell's intervention the Labour Front Bench would have supported the measure!
News also reaches me that the Labour front bench are likely to abstain in tomorrow's vote on Workfare.
What on earth is going on?
Have we really reached a point for no return where the Labour Party at Westminster now see the rights of workers and Trade Unions as expendable? Are they so cautious and sensitive to accusations of "Red Ed" being held hostage by the unions that they are prepared to sit back and let those self same members who actively support the Labour party (by choice and opt-in) through the trade union levy go to the wall ?
This is the enduring mystery at the heart of the Labour party - significant sums of money and resource support the party and individual MP's, MSP's, councillors and constituency parties - cheques written from political funds established though the political levy from the wages of many low paid workers. And what exactly do they get in return for all this support - other than warm words ("Comrades .. as a democratic socialist of course I support you..But...) and cool distance when councils set budgets, and parliamentarians cast their vote.
This ideological right wing Coalition Government must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Who do working people support now.
Westminster has failed working people. If the Government and the main opposition cannot protect workers, then surely only Independence can.
Only the SNP support the removal of anti-TU laws, with the rights of workers to begin on day one of their employment.
Surely now, only Independence can protect workers in Scotland through the European Social Chapter, which the Tories are desperate to ditch.
I would encourage everyone to sign up to Trade Unions for YES - facebook page up and running.
Westminster has repeatedly failed in the protection of working people in Scotland.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
AN ATTACK ON HEALTH AND SAFETY
Before Christmas the Westminster Coalition sneakily inserted a new clause to the Enterprise and Regulatory Bill which will impact on workers who seek compensation for suffering injury at work.
The clause (Clause 61) was inserted at the Report Stage of the Bill, has not been subject to public consultation, and overturns what has been established law for over 100 years.
Currently regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act contain statutory duties that ensure employers maintain safe workplaces. The Westminster Government wishes to remove what is known as strict laibility. For example as the employee does not have control over the selection, buying or maintenance of work equipment, the employer takes the risk if the equipment injures someone or is defective.
If the proposed change remains it will remove all opportunities for an injured worker to seek compensation from an employer for breach of a statutory duty, and employers will no longer be liable in civil court for breaches of Health and Safety at Work regulations. The only remedy available will be to prove employer negligence.
The Westminster Governments own impact assessment demonstrates that negligence is more difficult to prove.
The reality of this situation is that fewer claims will be pursued and fewer injured workers will receive compensation, and they and their families will have will pick up the consequences whilst Insurance compnaies will be the gainers.
Compensation is not a prize or bonus for employees, it is simply compensation for injury suffered. If this proposal is allowed to stand it will be a further eradication of workers rights in the UK, a dangerous, pernicious, and ideological backward step and a signal to bad employers that they have a better chance of getting away with poor health and safety provision.
This is quite simply a scandalous piece of legislation hidden under the disguise of deregulation.
The clause (Clause 61) was inserted at the Report Stage of the Bill, has not been subject to public consultation, and overturns what has been established law for over 100 years.
Currently regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act contain statutory duties that ensure employers maintain safe workplaces. The Westminster Government wishes to remove what is known as strict laibility. For example as the employee does not have control over the selection, buying or maintenance of work equipment, the employer takes the risk if the equipment injures someone or is defective.
If the proposed change remains it will remove all opportunities for an injured worker to seek compensation from an employer for breach of a statutory duty, and employers will no longer be liable in civil court for breaches of Health and Safety at Work regulations. The only remedy available will be to prove employer negligence.
The Westminster Governments own impact assessment demonstrates that negligence is more difficult to prove.
The reality of this situation is that fewer claims will be pursued and fewer injured workers will receive compensation, and they and their families will have will pick up the consequences whilst Insurance compnaies will be the gainers.
Compensation is not a prize or bonus for employees, it is simply compensation for injury suffered. If this proposal is allowed to stand it will be a further eradication of workers rights in the UK, a dangerous, pernicious, and ideological backward step and a signal to bad employers that they have a better chance of getting away with poor health and safety provision.
This is quite simply a scandalous piece of legislation hidden under the disguise of deregulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)