National Delegate Conference 21-24 June
2011
Thursday Briefing: Our NHS Our Future
Comp D lays bare the savaging of the NHS by the Government’s
White paper in England. While we hear much news about U-turns
and reviews, the fact remains that this is purely and simply an
attack on the founding basis of the NHS.
Privatisation cuts the heart out of a system based on co-operation,
turning it to a system based on competition. But even that is
a con because competition is far from the minds of the private
conglomerates. What they want is a monopoly.
And what better monopoly that one that everyone needs at some
point in their lives.
The motion lays out a 12 point plan to continue UNISON’s “Our
NHS Our Future” campaign. Amendment D.1, one has to assume, was
not supported by the Branch, Region, NEC and Retired Members who
form the composite otherwise it would have been in the composite.
We understand that the problem lies with the fact that there
is a very broad coalition campaigning against the government plans.
UNISON as part of that would not want to be unilaterally bouncing
one tactic on them. However, the amendment does seem flexible
enough and the NEC will support with qualifications.
Organising:
Motion 2 If anyone knows how to organise, it’s Northern
Region with arch-recruiter Kenny Bell, a thriving anti-cuts coalition
and more and more activists becoming involved. This motion gives
the policy base for what is often talked about but not implemented
- a real organising union.
Organising: Motion 1 This focuses on building coalitions
against the cuts. Organising the Union:
Motion 3 Sefton’s motion takes a further step in the practicalities
needed for an organising union. It includes prioritising spending,
training staff and activists and a long term strategy to reduce
casework and increase organisation.
Rules
Normally we run a whole series of graphics of people yawning
for the rules debates. But this year it looks like the rules could
bring some of the most intense debates, especially on finances
and disciplinary action.
Uncharacteristically for a nation that has a view on just about
everything, Scotland has no clear policy on the most contentious
rule changes. So the best we can do to assist branches is run
through some of the likely arguments.
1 Regional Representatives and 2 Service Group Representatives
Would require a member to be nominated by own branch before standing
for NEC or SGE. Clearly branches might see this as attractive
but it ignores that fact that NEC and SGE members represent the
whole union, not their branch, and as such the whole union should
be able to nominate them.
3 Sector elections Would mean that committees can be appointed
by direct or indirect election.
5 Branch email and postal address Requires every branch to have
a valid email and postal address. Seems sensible in this day and
age.
6 Branch Officers Restricts anyone from being both branch secretary
and treasurer, while giving NEC power to agree exceptions. This
failed before because small branches pointed out that the lack
of activists would mean this would be impossible to keep to. However,
it does seem sensible that these roles are separated for probity
and so the NEC is responding to last year’s concerns by putting
in a clause to allow for exceptions if needed
7 Steward elections Allows branches to elect stewards for 2 year
cycles in branch rules.
9 Rule I Disciplinary action Rewording aimed at making it easier
to exclude BNP (etc) members. NEC says current wording too restrictive,
not in keeping with changes in the law and revised wording the
result of legal advice.
10 and 11 Disciplinary suspension from holding office Conflicting
amendments to limit periods of suspension under Rule I. Basically
the argument is between 2 years maximum suspension or 5 years.
The rules also allow a member to be barred for life if the conduct
merits it. The argument for a maximum 5 years is that it gives
the lay disciplinary panel discretion to make the sentence fit
the crime. The argument for the 2 years is that 5 years is too
long and if it was that bad, why not expel them anyway? However,
some would argue that, with only a maximum of two years as an
option, we could end up with more expulsions where panels felt
the 2 years could not reflect the seriousness of the offence.
In this debate, comparisons are often made with employers’ disciplinary
actions.
It is important to remember the difference between an employer’s
function and that of a union. Employers use suspension pending
an investigation, and that shouldn't take longer than a year.
UNISON uses suspension from office as a punishment and to protect
branch members
12 Censure This change would allow disciplinary panels to censure
a member rather than taking punitive action. Seems sensible. 15-17
Rule book benefits Straight index-linked uprating. Amendments
mean the uprating would be at the better RPI rate rather than
CPI (remember the pensions debates?)
20 Schedule F Branch Finance: The best we can do with
this is explain where Edinburgh’s amendments are coming from.
The parts of the schedule which provoked most comment in the consultation
were on introducing a new investment scheme and on centralised
banking.
Because of that, the NEC has agreed to undertake further consultation
on the proposed investment scheme and they say no scheme will
be implemented until a future conference has agreed it. In addition,
any investment scheme will be voluntary and no branch forced to
use it.
Edinburgh welcomes some aspects like
- A consistent branch finances handbook
- Better and clearer financial controls so we all know where
we stand
- A consistent approach to expenses.
- A strategy for making the £47 million lying in branches actually
work for us rather than the banks.
But the branch was worried that some of the provisions might
penalise branches that take a prudent approach and seek to plan
for contingencies.
Its amendments, now accepted by the NEC cover two main issues:-
1. Branch operating funds: This amendment clarifies what is meant
by that and includes building a ‘prudent’ surplus to ensure the
branch can react to contingencies.
2. Industrial action fund Schedule F doesn’t take any money out
of industrial action funds but it does put a limit on what is
not counted as income - if the money has come from transfers from
the general fund (money raised by levies is excluded). That limit
was set at £3 per member. the amendment lifts that to a more realistic
£10 per member.
Edinburgh has built up a pot in excess of this to meet specific
challenges, not least the threat of privatising 4,000 jobs. The
other amendments allow Regions and the NEC to make an exception
as to how much branches can put into their industrial action funds
and how much they can retain in them for one-off exceptional circumstances.
Edinburgh is clear that it does not support branches hoarding
huge surpluses doing nothing for the union or siphoning off money
into industrial action funds that there is no intention of using.
What it is arguing for is flexibility when branches have to respond
to exceptional circumstances.
top
|
