| More
Information |
|
|
|
Members Services
|
|
|
|
|
Pay
2000 Review
|
|
UNISON City of Edinburgh
Local Government & Related Sectors Branch
Response to UNISON Scottish
Local Government Committee
REVIEW OF THE 2000 PAY CAMPAIGN.
- Introduction
There has been considerable debate in the
branch about the organisation and tactics
of the Pay Campaign. This culminated in an
AGM motion which was then taken on to the
Scottish Local Government Service Group Conference.
While there has been wide consultation in
the branch via the AGM, meetings of strikers
and through stewards committees, only two
written responses were received to the circulated
report. These disagreed with each other on
the success of the campaign but agreed on
one issue that has been consistently raised
in the branch - the problems caused by changing
from the planned 1, 2, 3 days of action.
- What was achieved.
There is considerable satisfaction among lower
paid members at the outcome of the dispute.
Middle earning members are far less supportive,
especially in relation to the perceived pay
cut in 2002.
The solidarity of members taking action was
excellent and, especially at the beginning
exceeded expectations. Because of the level
of confusion towards the end of the dispute
and the long gaps in action and information,
we lost some of the positives of the settlement.
The debate about the implications of three
year funding was not explicit enough and therefore
the shift from 'no two year deals, to a four
year deal was not understood and was seen
as a major about turn by many members.
What is clear is that we would not have achieved
what we did without the action. Yet it has
been hard to get members to see this for the
victory it was.
- Change in Tactics
We do not agree that the change from 1, 2,
3 days to an ad hoc series of one day strikes,
linked with bringing forward the selective
action, was the right way forward. The problems
created include:
- Lack of Consultation
The members' view was that this is not what
they voted for. Because of the way it was
raised at the Forum, members felt they had
not been consulted. This created ill feeling
amongst members but also within the Forum.
- Lack of clear planning
The change in tactics was either pragmatic
(we could not deliver the 1, 2, 3?), or naïve
(the selective action would win the day).
It was not a pro-active decision based on
careful analysis or wide consultation.
- Addressing weaknesses/ Realistic planning?
If the decision was based on being unable
to deliver, then there should have been more
honesty about where the dispute was going.
In Edinburgh there was a very wide view that
little would move until the three day block
kicked in. The one day strikes were disruptive
and well supported but recovery from them
was quick. Especially in Education, there
was a wide view that the real disruption would
come with the three day stoppage.
The move away from the original plan was interpreted
by management as weakness and UNISON being
unable to deliver and they settled in for
a long dispute.
If there were concerns about the ability to
deliver, then these should have been addressed
at an early stage. There was little point
maintaining the strikes for the sake of maintaining
the strikes.
- Selective Action
Selective action itself was never going to
win the dispute and the decision to bring
it forward and curtail the all-out days was
very hard to sell as an 'escalation'. It was
a 'lowest common denominator' tactic rather
than one realistically designed to win the
dispute.
The selection of the groups was fragmented
and inconsistent and should have had more
central direction and co-ordination. Because
of the different tactics in different areas
(and little or nothing happening in some areas),
we lost the sense of a national dispute.
- Media initiative
Because of the lack of co-ordination of the
selective action, we lost the media initiative.
In Edinburgh we were running with the campaign
'line' that we were not targeting the public
but were targeting Council infrastructure.
Yet alongside this, action directly affecting
the public was being sanctioned in nearby
areas. The media rightly accused us of a 'forked
tongue' approach.
It seemed that some selective groups were
chosen on the basis of whether they would
go on strike as opposed to how they fitted
in to the overall strategy.
- The Forum
The dispute has raised fundamental flaws in
the role of the Forum The structure needs
to be reviewed and the basic question of whether
it should exist at all needs to be raised.
The positives and negatives emerging from
branch discussions are as follows:-
Positives:
- Every branch is able to be part of a direct
consultation with the staff side.
- It can be used as a relatively quick way
of consultation.
- It allows branches to scrutinise negotiators
in a direct way.
Negatives
- The Forum regularly exceeds its role and
takes on the role of a decision-making forum.
This is not supportable when there is no real
pro-rata representation from branches.
- The Forum attempts to take strategic, tactical
and organisational decisions in a large group
using formal meetings procedures. This is,
and has been, a recipe for chaos.
- Branches come mandated as individual branches
following individual branch agendas. As such
it is very difficult to arrive at a position
for the union as a whole.
- Many members of the staff side were guilty
of voting one way on the staff side then voting
against themselves at the Forum. This has
been argued as being accountable to individual
branches. However, staff side members are
not elected to represent their own individual
branch - if that were the case we would need
a member of every branch on the side. They
are elected to represent all the branches
and act in the interests of the union as a
whole.
It exposes a flaw in those elected to positions
of leadership being unable to take the responsibility
for that leadership. The result was some reps
facing both ways at once which totally inhibited
strategic planning of the dispute.
We believe this raises fundamental issues
about the very existence of the Forum. However,
if the Forum is to continue it must allow
for 'back-filling' of places - ie if a branch
has a rep on the side, it should be able to
replace that position on their delegation.
This would resolve the problem of branches
losing a vote if they have a staff side member.
However it would not stop the absurdity of
staff side members still being able to vote
one way on the side and another in the Forum.
- The Role of the election
It would be foolish to deny a suspicion amongst
some members that the union leadership was
nervous about damaging the Labour Party's
election prospects. We do not believe that
there is any evidence to suggest that lay
or full time officers represented anything
but the UNISON position.
However, these suspicions were not helped
by conflicting advice from full time officers
at some stages of the dispute, bringing a
sense of obstructiveness. As well as having
no conflict of interest, we also need to be
seen to have no conflict.
The suspicions were not helped by media coverage,
especially when it was obvious that some briefings
were coming from within UNISON. Some of this
appears to have come from naivety, some perhaps
by design. What is clear is that the employers
did not get a clear message at the beginning
that the whole force of the union was behind
this dispute. From what some employers appeared
to be saying, they were also getting some
luke warm messages from lay and full time
officers during the dispute. This was particularly
obvious in the optimism the employers had
for the second rejected offer.
John Stevenson
Branch Secretary
top
|
|
|
|