New strike figures show increase

Author: Martin Thomas

According to the latest official figures, just released, in the 12 months up to and including April 2008 there were 189 strikes, involving 959,000 workers, and totalling 1,121,000 striker-days.

The figures are still low compared to the late 1980s or 1996, let alone the 1970s, but better than those for the corresponding periods in recent years.

In the 12 months up to and including April 2007, there were 198 strikes, involving 253,000 workers, and a total of 324,000 striker-days. To April 2006: 184 strikes, 716,000 workers, 715,000 striker-days. To April 2005: 156 strikes, 217,000 strikers, 341,000 striker-days. To April 2004: 215 strikes, 354,000 strikers, 955,000 striker-days.

The new figure for the total number of workers involved in strikes is the highest for a comparable 12-month period since the stretch from May 2002 to April 2003, which included the firefighters' dispute.

Ansonsten werden am 16. und 17. Juli einige hunderttausend Beschäftigte im öffentlichen Dienst streiken.

Almost always, Labour's policies are the most in line with the unions' hopes of the major parties, but these days that just aint saying much, and the Lib Dems are frankly biting at their heels. So it's nice to hear that one union - GMB (oddly standing for General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union) - is trying to enforce some sort of value-for-money, by starting to restrict the automatic flow of their membership's investment to Labour MPs.

In today naming six of up to 35 MPs it intends to remove funding from, the Guardian reports that:

Paul Kenny, the GMB's general secretary, told the union's annual conference in Plymouth that one third of the union's 108 MPs would cease to "have any funding, organisational support or backing from the GMB" at the next general election.

I've no idea why they've made the decision, whether it's cost-cutting or vindicative, but frankly, the principle seems to hold fast regardless. I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made that many policies, particularly in the area of economics, might be hard for a union to accept in the short-term, but will be best for their members in the long-term. But if that's the case, and Labour truly believes it (as I have no doubt they do in the case of many policies) they need to start making that case, and making it convincingly, so that unions get behind them. And if they can't convince the unions that their policy will be the best in the end, they've no right to expect that they'll automatically have the unions support, by default, tradition, or worse still because there's nobody about that's any better.

By refusing to disaffiliate from Labour as a whole, and merely withdrawing support from MPs that the union feels doesn't support them, they press for better, more progressive Labour MPs, rather than dooming the party itself. The fact that they've pitched this as just another example of the performance-related-pay - of which New Labour is so fond - is merely the icing on the cake!

Labour MPs will face "performance-related testing" from one of Britain's largest unions or risk having their funds cut.

The GMB, which is meeting in Plymouth for its annual conference, is threatening to withdraw funding from a third of Labour MPs because they are not doing enough to support union policies.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Paul Kenny, the union's general secretary, said that money would be diverted to those MPs who were promoting its policies.

"The intention is not to cut funding overall, it's to divert it to areas where frankly people are doing a job of work. The government is very keen on testing for everybody – performance-related pay – and we've applied in the GMB over the last 12 months the exactly the same principle." (emphasis mine)

I can imagine a smirk stretching across his face as he said that.

It's about time: the money the GMB donates to politicians comes from hardworking men & women who earn considerably less than the £60,000 + expenses our MPs currently enjoy, and if they're not going to attempt to justify their donations by campaigning, advocating and governing on their behalf, then there are many more worthy people and more worthy causes to spend it on.

01 Stand Out
02 Agung Dan Mulia
03 Bangkit dan Bercahaya
04 Sahabatku
05 Badai Berlalu
06 Shout
07 Aku MilikMu
08 Sampai Batas Waktu
09 Esok 'Kan Kujelang
10 Arti Hidup
11 Sela

Download

Setelah menelurkan 10 album sebelumnya, tahun 2008 ini GMB meluncurkan album terbaru berjudul "stand out". Berbeda dengan album-abum sebelumnya, kali ini GMB muncul dengan wajah baru yang membentuk formasi baru band yaitu Bams sebagai vokalis menggantikan Sidney Mohede yang secara resmi telah keluar dari GMB sejak Januari 2008 untuk lebih fokus di JPCC.

Giving My Best atau yang lebih dikenal dengan sebutan GMB adalah band musik rohani dengan gaya musik anak muda beraliran pop rock yang memulai debutnya pada tahun 1996. Dalam konferensi pers Senin lalu (26/05) di J.CO City Walk Sudirman, Jakarta, GMB muncul denngan wajah baru.

Pembuatan album yang berjudul "stand out" ini yang berarti berdiri teguh, bersinar, dan berani tampil beda dari sekelilingnya relatif cukup singkat hanya memakan waktu 1 bulan saja. Dimulai pada akhir Maret sampai dengan 5 April untuk pembuatan lirik dan aransemennya yang dibuat saat mereka berkumpul di Singapura, yang kemudian proses pembuatannya dilanjutkan di Jakarta sampai dengan pertengahan April lalu.

Bams yang juga terkenal sebagai vokalis salah satu band sekuler "Samson" ini mengaku merasa diberkati dan merasa dipanggil saat mulai bergabung dengan GMB dan sedari dulu memang dia memang penggemar group musik rohani ini. Dan kedekatannya dengan anggota GMB yang lainnya sekitar 2 tahun dan pada album yang ke- 11 ini GMB mengajak Bams untuk berkolaborasi bersama.

Pada album terbaru ini, Joseph Djafar yang merupakan pendiri GMB 12 tahun silam, dan hanya bergabung dalam 3 album GMB dan juga pernah keluar karena kesibukan pribadinya, melalui beberapa proses, GMB mengajaknya kembali bergabung dalam GMB dan dia sendiri telah berkomitmen untuk GMB dan tidak bergabung dengan group musik manapun.

Dengan hadirnya Joseph melengkapi personil GMB yang baru menjadi 5 orang yakni; Adi Prasodjo pada perkusi, Amos Cahyadi pada drum, Bams pada vocal, Jeffry Hermanto pada bass, dan Joseph S. Djafar pada keyboard.

Isi lagu dalam album "stand out" ini sendiri adalah tentang cinta GMB kepada Tuhan, kebesaran dan kesetiaan Tuhan.

Pada 12 Juni mendatang GMB akan mengadakan konser peluncuran album terbarunya "stand out" di Tennis Indoor - Senayan, Jakarta

Maria F.
Reporter Kristiani Pos

Sumber : Christianipost.co.id

Our friends at Dissent have made available on-line a very important article from their Winter 2008 issue--Stephen F. Diamond's "Private Equity and the Public Good." (It's a reminder that subscribers get to read many articles before they're on-line. I'm looking forward to getting the Spring issue in the mailbox to read "Show Me the Money": Labor and the Bottom Line of National Health Insurance by Marie Gottschalk and A Southern Strategy For Unions by John Lalas. So subscribe, already)

Diamond argues that the emergence of private equity firms as an important form of capitalist organization marks "the arrival of a potentially new stage in the history of capitalism."

To understand this new stage, we must understand the strengths and limitations of the model of capitalism developed in the classic 1932 study by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property.

Diamond provides lots of insights into thinking what private means and the evolving attitudes of unions.

Here's his conclusion

Private-equity-led buyouts represent an evolution in the effort by a significant fraction of sophisticated players in the economy to forge new methods of managing and controlling the process of creating and appropriating value from the labor force on behalf of investors. It is possible that the concentration of expertise in finance with operational know-how, may enhance the ability of capital to engineer greater returns. To recognize the magnitude of the accomplishment of PE funds is not to support the result. Instead, it helps to highlight the challenge for labor and the left. Private equity funds are doing what capital has always done and will continue to do unless an alternative form of organizing economic activity is established. A misguided fear of “financialization” does not bring us any closer to exploring that alternative.

Diamond's article should be read in conjunction with a report by the UK's GMB union, "Private Equity's Broken Promises" and the IUF's A Worker's Guide to Private Equity.

April 24 – hundreds of thousands to walk out

Employer attacks on workers' pay is the main issue at stake.

Teachers in the NUT are walking out over their pay deal which was supposed to be revised when inflation rose, but the government refused: effectively cutting their wages.

Over 100,000 civil servants in the PCS across ten government agencies are downing tools over sub-inflationary pay rises.

Nearly 30,000 further education lecturers in UCU are stopping work in support of a demand to win pay parity with school teachers, and against excessive hours.

20,000 Birmingham council workers in UNISON, Unite, GMB and UCATT are striking for two days over a "single status" pay review which will cut some staff's pay in half

Hundreds of staff at homelessness charity Shelter are walking out for two days against an unpaid increase in hours and further cuts in pay and conditions.

700 coastguards are walking out in their third 24-hour strike from 7pm 23 April - 7pm 24 April against low pay, and continuing a work-to-rule.

What you can do
We spoke to a local government worker and libcom member who told us "the best thing other workers can do to support these struggles is to organise to improve their own pay and conditions. Communicate your own struggles to other workers, using tools such as libcom.org.

"On April 24, people not officially striking can help by not crossing picket lines.

"Report on developments near you on this thread in our forums, with photographs if possible. If you can, visit picket lines and show your support. Talk to the strikers, ask about the dispute and report back so that other workers can learn from them.

"For parents with dependency leave, if schools are closed you can tell your employer that your childcare fell through at the last minute. This will save you money, give you the day off and help spread the effects of the teachers' strike through the economy.

"Help spread the ideas that we can only win these disputes by taking control of them ourselves. The unions have been helping impose pay cuts, we cannot entrust the fight to them."

Background
Tension is brewing across the whole public sector in response to a central government directive to cap annual cost of living pay rises to 2%. When RPI inflation – which includes housing costs – is running at over 4% this equates to annual real pay cuts of around 2%.

Local government workers are being consulted on a 2.475% offer. Last year the unions either recommended this pay cut (Unite and GMB), or called off strike action aimed at beating it (UNISON). This year many workers fear they will manage to repeat this sabotage.

These fears are not unfounded. As reported on libcom, UNISON is already due to recommend a 3-year package of pay cuts for NHS workers. UNISON is also disciplining several union activists who criticised the leadership over their complicity in last year's pay cuts. UNISON Health last year banned branches from recommending members reject pay cuts.

John Stevens

This was the response from GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny to the news that Jack Straw had come out with a proposal (for a White Paper on Party political funding) which would mean that union political fund money would go directly to New Labour HQ rather than to the unions. Clearly, Paul Kenny's statement was aimed at warning them of the consequences of this proposal and to firghten them into withdrawing it. Whether the New Labour leaders will be stupid enough to press ahead with such a proposal without the support of union leaders remains to be seen. It is difficult to see how the unions, even those who supported Brown's coronation as Party leader, could accept a situation where they did not have control over their own members' money (though we wait with baited breath).

The debate, however, raises once again the question of what we do with the money now. Let's take the example of Council Housing. When the MP's who have supported the Defend Council Housing campaign, put forward their amendments to the Housing Regeneration Bill, only 30 Labour MP's voted for them (even 40 Liberals supported them). These included an amendment which would have allowed Councils to start building Council houses once again. In November of last year 76 Labour MP's had supported an Early Day Motion which included the demand for a new round of Council House building, but when it came to voting against the government less than half of them had the backbone to do so.

How did the union sponsored MP's vote on this simple but fundamental issue? Six Amicus MP's out of 112 voted in support of Council Housing, eight GMB MP's out of 100, 9 out of 61 UNISON MP's did so. Even in the RMT Parliamentary Group only 10 supported the amendments and four even voted with the government. I couldn't find a list of T&G MP's on their web site, though it is doubtful they would have bucked the trend.

Once again this vote starkly poses the question of why the trades unions support people who do not support union policy and the interests of their members, on such a fundamental issue. The debate took place in the context of a Bill which denies Councils the right to build Council Housing, and a government policy, overall, which undermines the continued existence of Council housing, and at a time when the housing crisis is deepening.

The Blair/Brown cabal set out to put an end to Council housing by bullying and blackmailing tenants into voting to transfer their housing to private companies or Housing Associations. However, as the campaign to defend Council housing developed, based on a united front between the trades unions, tenants and their organisations, more and more ballots were lost by the government. Year after year the Labour conference has passed a policy in complete contradiction with that of the government but the government has contemptuously ignored it.

Today it transpires that the government's funding of existing Council Housing is such that most Councils will have insufficient funds to adequately maintain existing stock. At the same time the government's so-called 'equalisation' of rents (designed to drive up Council rents to the level of Housing Associations) is pushing them ever higher. Council rents in Swindon, for instance are liable to increase by around 50% by 2016.

A recent report indicates that Housing Revenue Accounts will be unsustainable because of projected levels of government funding. The major repairs allowance is predicted to be “40% short of what most people estimate is a minimum investment need over 30 years” (Steve Partridge, Housing Quality Network consultant).

Many local authority areas suffer a “negative subsidy”. Swindon for instance has to pay the government £9 million a year from its rent revenue, around 25% of the total.

This is the context in which union sponsored MPs , in their overwhelming majority refused to support the demand that Councils have the right and the finance to build new Council housing. In so doing they supported the 'free market' ideological opposition of the government to Council housing.

Many of these same sponsored MPs, of course, blithely support privatisation of public services, job cuts, and the government's on-going destruction of the NHS. They do nothing to support union members. It is surely high time that the affiliated unions stopped supporting MPs who are not prepared to challenge government policy which stands in contradiction with the interests of our members.

Yes, we should oppose the arrogant proposal to steal our members' money, but we should also start asserting in a more serious fashion our right to support only those MP's who support our members and show the backbone to oppose the government's neo-liberal agenda. Better a few, but real friends, than pseudo-friends who take our money but support policies which are disastrous for our members and public services.

Whether the main unions should remain affiliated to Labour is another debate. But so long as they are affiliated then they should only support MP's who are opposed to New Labour's privatising agenda.

16 Apr 2008

Members of GMB employed in refuse and street cleansing in Leeds City Council, have voted by a majority in favour of industrial action in response to Leeds City Council’s proposals for a new pay and grading system. GMB members voted by 75% to 25% to take strike action and by 95.5% to 4.5% to take action short of a strike.

Strike action will commence with the first day of strike on Wednesday 23 April 2008, an indefinite work-to-rule will start on Thursday 24 April 2008, with a further day of strike action planned for the local Election Day on 1 May 2008. The City council has been notified by GMB of the ballot vote and the dates for action.

GMB Senior Organiser, Neil Derrick said:

“GMB members are angry at Leeds City Council’s failure to provide a pay and grading structure which delivers fairness and equality. There are only two ways to deal with equal pay, the right way and the wrong way, the right way – which the GMB has been pushing for – is to bring the pay for women workers up, to match their male counter parts. The wrong way is to bring the pay of men down to meet the already low pay levels of women employees. GMB members in Leeds voted overwhelmingly to reject Leeds City Council’s proposals and since then the GMB has been trying to gain an improvement, however Leeds City Council have refused to budge. The GMB has served notice therefore that we will pursue thousands of equal pay claims through the courts and launch a campaign of industrial action until a new, fair pay system is introduced within Leeds."

This is a GMB Press Release: www.gmb.org.uk

GMB General Secretary Pat Kenny fired an angry shot across their bows.

“The government is going down the wrong road and taking the wrong direction. There is no way we are going to concede the right to allocate their cash to Gordon Brown and the party headquarters when not all our members support everything that the government is doing. Not all our members support the Labour party and they would not stand for their money being used in this way. They would want us to disaffiliate if the government insists on doing this.”

John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said:

“This proposal will be opposed by MPs and rank-and-file members across the Labour party. It gives Labour party headquarters the right to take over control of all trade union money and is unacceptable.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/16/tradeunions.labour

Last week, the BNP put up a triumphant story on the front-page of their website declaring they were going to sue the trade union the GMB and win compensation that would fund their election campaign because of a 'libellous' leaflet handed out by Carlisle Against Racism.

Apparently, they were reporting the matter immediately to the police, going to their solicitors and sending letters to the GMB as soon as possible. Then, photographs of Labour councillors delivering these scandalous leaflets would be handed to the returning officer.

That was well over a week ago now. To date, no such letters have been received by the GMB and no Labour Party city councillors have been spotted, let alone photographed, handing out the leaflets. Enough said.

The editor of the BNP newspaper Martin Wingfield is claiming that this is because Carlisle Against Racism have withdrawn the leaflet. That's news to us, some of us were putting them through doors yesterday!

Or so the BNP seem to think.

In their latest leaflet Carlisle Against Racism have mistakenly used an image of an individual giving a Nazi salute and stated that it was a picture of Nick Griffin, having copied the image from another publication which said this.

It's a bit of an embarrassing mistake since these leaflets are going out to thousands of households but an understandable one given Griffin's current and previous political beliefs, which have changed so frequently it's difficult to keep up.

However, the BNP are claiming this was a deliberate lie designed to trick people rather than a silly mistake, because obviously anti-racists could never make a genuine mistake. Nice of them to have so much faith in us.

So, since they feel Carlisle Against Racism have committed libel they've logically decided to take legal action against the trade union the GMB. Wait, why are they suing the GMB? Who knows. If that lot had brains they'd be dangerous.

Apparently the rest of the leaflet is 'full of lies' but funnily enough they don't actually mention any of them or threaten legal action over them.

Accompanied with this are the usual lies about anti-racist groups being fronts for the Labour Party. This isn't true but it doesn't stop the BNP claiming that the leaflet is being put out by Labour city councillors and candidates, even asking for photographic evidence of this taking place so they can report them to the returning officer.

We wish them luck in photographing Labour councillors and activists handing out these leaflets, according to Carlisle Against Racism not one of them has been sighted so far coming along to help leaflet!

It's surprising they've chosen to make such an issue of this, after all there are enough dodgy photos of Nick Griffin's political past (see right) or of BNP members doing stuff like Nazi salutes to dismiss any idea that this is an outrageous smear with no basis in truth.

Also, the BNP have a notoriously bad habit of losing cases like this. Still, it's their time and money.

According to the BNP website Nick Griffin will probably be looking for compensation from the 'GBM' as a result of this.

Who the 'GBM' are is a mystery but it seems the BNP are as good at checking spelling as they are at checking facts. 

Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary said:

“The Chancellor has bowed to pressure from the multi-millionaire elite who run the private equity and financial institutions to enable them to continue to receive income as capital gains. He has missed the moral target of making this buccaneering elite, whose recklessness is a contributory cause of the turbulence in the world’s credit markets and the trouble that it will visit on ordinary citizens, pay the same rate of tax on their income as their cleaners.

His approach to public services pay and to those on incapacity benefit is sharply different. He wants to hold down public sector pay below inflation. This attempt to cut living standards will be met with resistance and will undermine morale.
His requirement that those on incapacity benefit must attend work capability assessments is based on the false notion that the high levels of claimants in some areas is due to the fact that these people to not want work. He fails to see it for the labour market issue that it really is. In areas with high employment rates, like Berkshire, there are low rates of people on incapacity benefits, while in places with low employment rates, in the former industrial areas like South Wales, there are very high rates of people on incapacity benefits.

The Chancellor needs to face up to the fact that in today’s labour market able bodied and fully fit workers get jobs ahead of those who are disabled and those not fully fit. The unpalatable truth is that the problem lies with the lack demand from employers for these workers. Why does the Chancellor think GMB put up such a fight to stop the Government sacking 2,500 disabled Remploy workers as they close 30 factories? Most of these Remploy workers will never work again.”

GMB today vowed to continue the fight to reverse the closure of the York Remploy factory. GMB had hoped that a meeting between workers from the factory and Gordon Brown at the Spring Labour Party conference last weekend might have moved the PM to help stop the closure but so far GMB has not been able to get any up date or reaction form Number 10.

GMB is launching legal action against Remploy and the Secretary of State over the Remploy factory closures on the grounds of unfair selection for redundancy and unfair dismissal for the workers who have been sacked.

Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary responsible for GMB members working at Remploy said, “GMB moves the fight to the courts now. GMB will be challenging not only Remploy managements’ action in this dispute but also the Secretary of State’s role in the selection for Remploy factories for closure.

GMB’s campaign against Remploy’s treatment of its workforce does not stop with today’s closure of the York and other factories this month. GMB has set up a support group and have a ‘Reopen the York Factory’ campaign group comprising of GMB Senior Stewards, MPs and local activists.

GMB will continue to campaign for the delivery of the pledge at last Autumn’s Labour Party conference by the Secretary of State that public procurement of goods and services would be used to generate a steady stream of work for supported workshops for disabled workers. Little progress has been made on implementing that pledge to date.

Let us be clear. These York Remploy workers have been betrayed by the Labour government and the Labour Party and we will not forget it. This is the saddest day I can remember in my many years as a trade unionist and negotiator.”

GMB today called on MPs to support the private member’s Bill aimed at giving new rights to 1.4 million UK agency staff at second reading in the Commons tomorrow, Friday 22nd February 2008. The Bill has been introduced by Andrew Miller MP for Neston & Ellesmere Port and is expected to be supported by over 100 Labour MPs. The Bill would introduce into UK law the same employment rights for agency staff as those enjoyed by permanent, directly employed staff. It covers the same ground as the proposed European Directive which may be discussed at the EU Employment, Social and Consumer Affairs Council on the 29th February 2008.

It was reported in the media that the UK Government is proposing a Commission of inquiry Chaired by Sir George Bain to see if agreement can be reached between the Unions and the CBI on the issue. The CBI is opposed to any employment rights for agency staff for their first 12 months of employment. The trade union want the employment right to apply to agency staff from day one.

Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary commenting on this report about a Commission said, “It is incredibly premature for the Government to be talking about setting up a Commission, with an independent chairman, to study the issue of agency workers' rights.

What is being offered so far is a second-hand fairy tale, which certainly does not have a happy ending. If every other country in Europe is prepared to give agency workers rights, why should we have to put up with being second or third class citizens? The Government is trying to appease the business lobby.”

Strike ballots underway in a further 6 Remploy factories as disabled workers step up campaign for the existing factory network and for the required management changes

28 Jan 2008

Newly released official strike ballots by GMB and Unite at Remploy CCU in Birkenhead and Remploy Aintree show overwhelming support for industrial action in the ongoing dispute over redundancies at Remploy. These two ballot results are the first of further six official strike ballots in the pipeline. Results are expected in the next two weeks for the Remploy factories in York, Hartlepool, and St Helens, and Treforest, Ystradgynlais near Swansea and Brynammon in South Wales. Detailed consultations are underway regarding official strike ballots in the other factories set for closure. A blockade in currently underway at the York factory to stop the removal of machinery from the factory.

The Remploy strike ballots follow on from the announcement on 29th November 2007 by the former Secretary of State Peter Hain that he planed to go ahead with the Remploy management’s proposal to close 28 Remploy factories out of the total network of 83. The factories to be closed, with the loss of 2,000 supported jobs for disabled workers, are listed in List 1 below.
Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary, responding to the ballot results said:

“Remploy disabled workers are victims of long running poor management and direction that failed to use the changes in the EU procurement laws to provide a steady workload to all factories. These votes shows that those unfairly selected for redundancy and facing unfair dismissal will fight for their jobs.

Remploy workers have been betrayed by the Labour Government who misled the workers, the Labour Party Conference and the public that there would be a change of policy regarding choice and public procurement to secure a future for the Remploy network. Yet a mere 8 weeks later the closure of 28 factories was confirmed by the now departed Secretary of State Peter Hain. Still the dirty tricks and smears continue in the wake of these broken promises. Management now intend to sack even more disabled workers than they started out planning to sack.

This whole exercise has been a sham and a disgrace which will taint the relationship between GMB and the Government.”

6% or 50p per hour claim whichever is the greater for 1.4 million local government workers
15 Jan 2008

The national trade union side for Local Government employees has submitted a 2008 pay claim for 1.4 million council workers. The claim is for an increase to all pay points of 6% or 50p per hour, whichever is the greater for each individual employee. The adult starting rate in Local Government is only £6 per hour, the lowest in the public sector.

Outstanding claims for improvements to terms and conditions will be dealt with separately so that the focus of the joint trade unions campaign will be concentrated on pay.

Local Government workers 2007 pay deal was worth 2.5% which was well below inflation meaning that Local Government workers lost money in real terms. Inflation is currently running over 4%, with basic living costs going through the roof. So we need a good pay increase just to keep up with price rises.

Local authorities have been making savings of over £1 billion a year for the past three years and have been allowed to make above inflation council tax increases. The employers can afford a decent pay rise.

The Unions are awaiting a date for a joint meeting with the employers to discuss the pay rise which GMB members want in place by the anniversary date of 1st April 2008.

Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary, “GMB will not be fobbed off. GMB members working in local government deserve a good pay rise, they’ve earned it. At the national Trade Union side meeting delegates for all unions agreed to campaign fast and hard together. GMB expect government to try to keep local government pay down; GMB expect employers to plead poverty. So let’s be clear. This year will see council workers stand up for their rights; GMB is starting the preparations now because it looks as though industrial action is unavoidable. GMB is getting ready for the fight.”

Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary for Public Service said “There are four fundamental problems. The first is that the argument that public sector pay has to be controlled to manage down inflation is economically flawed and socially unacceptable. The second is that different parts of the public sector have different needs from pay negotiations and whereas for some a period of stability makes sense for others there is a desperate need for change. The third is that any sensible negotiator will want to see a premium for sacrificing future negotiating rounds and that would mean any long-term deal having to go above RPI – and that isn’t the government’s intention.”

“Perhaps most importantly of all is whether they can be trusted. After all, the government has reneged on most recent pay review body awards and who’s to say they would honour a 3 year deal? Their track record says otherwise.”

“For example, among the 1.5 million local government sector workers they want a one-year pay deal that corrects some of the low-pay and unequal pay anomalies as well as catching up on nearly 2% worth of inflation lost in their last pay deal.”

“The reality is that Brown and Darling want to have public sector pay settled for politically expediency because there will be a general election within the next three years. GMB isn’t interested in those sorts of games – we have members who need good pay rises.”

In Swindon our members in the NHS are faced with the prospect of the local Trust becoming a Foundation Hospital. This is part and parcel of the government’s policy of introducing a ‘market’ in the NHS in which self-standing Trusts compete with each other and private companies for patients. One of the ‘advantages’ for a Foundation Trust is that it can opt out of national agreements on wages and conditions of service. 

Having heard some of the complaints about sponsored MPs on the GMB Congress web cast, what, I wondered, was the attitude of GMB sponsored MPs on this disastrous course which is liable to destroy the NHS as a national service?  I did a little research. According to the GMB web site we have 100 Sponsored MPs in the Westminster Parliament. Of these, in government positions high and low we have (this was before the 'coronation' of Brown): 

4 Secretaries of State

7 Ministers of State

1 Parliamentary Secretary

5 Parliamentary Under Secretaries

1 Lord Privy Seal

1 Solicitor General

1 Lords Commissioner at the Treasury

1 Deputy Speaker

20 Parliamentary Private Secretaries. 

And to keep the voting fodder going through the lobbies we have 3 Assistant Whips. Yes, three of our sponsored MPs have the job of pressuring other GMB sponsored MPs to support privatisation of public services. 

Some will say that this crowd listed above cannot vote against the government. True. All they have to do is put their career prospects before the interests of our members. There is nothing to stop them resigning but lack of principles. Some of them no doubt do believe the neo-liberal dogma. 

However, even if you leave them out of the equation, of the remaining 56 MPs, I have only been able to find 11 who voted on some occasion (some of these have not been consistent) against Foundation Hospitals. That is to say that 89 MPs sponsored by the GMB have supported the privatisation of the Health Service; the introduction of a ‘health market’. 

You have to ask why the GMB, or any other union for that matter would continue to support MPs who are prepared to support the abandonment of the principles on which the NHS was founded. 

I believe the policy of the union, agreed at the CEC a long time ago, is that we will not automatically sponsor Labour MPs or candidates. We said we would test whether or not they have supported the fundamentals of union policy and the interests of our members. If we are to take this policy seriously then we should apply it rigorously. That means above all else we should withdraw support for anybody who supports the current ‘public sector reforms’ which are so disastrous for our members and for the service they supply. 

Before I joined the GMB I was for many years an RMT activist. RMT activists were sick to death of the refusal of our MPs (including two jags Prescott) to support our members’ interests. The RMT's sponsored MPs parted company with the union when they refused to campaign for re-nationalisation of the railways, to oppose privatisation of the London Underground, and flagging out of ships.

The RMT wrote to all Labour MPs inviting them to join a new Parliamentary Group which would be based on 4 points of policy. The money provided for the group goes into a campaigning pot. The basis for joining the group is purely support for the aims which relate to the interests of the members of the union. Neither the MPs nor their constituencies receive any money. To join the group you have to be interested in campaigning for the policies. Today, despite the fact that the RMT was expelled from the Labour Party it has a 22 member parliamentary group, led by John McDonnell. 

Although the GMB, of course, is still affiliated to the Labour Party, the same approach in regard to a Parliamentary Group could usefully be applied. Pick the issues which are rooted in the interests of our members and invite MPs to join it in order to campaign for these aims. Don’t support careerists or people who support the free market dogma of ‘New’ Labour. This is after all a government which could declare in the European Union that the right to strike is not ‘a fundamental human right’! Of course, it would be a much smaller group than currently. But what is the point of supporting MPs who support policies which are detrimental to the interests of our members? So long as they take our votes and our support for granted, then they will not act in the interests of our members. It is high time to dump MPs who are content to see the NHS turned into a competitive market, who fail to campaign for employment rights from day one and so on. 

So long as the GMB continues to remain affiliated to the Labour Party it should step up the political battle with the ‘free market’, neo-liberal agenda on which government policy is based. Re-launching a Parliamentary group on the basis of aims which posed a fundamental change of direction would show the government we were in earnest. Most importantly, it would show our members that we were serious about fighting for their interests and those of the working class in general.

A Fundamental flaw in the consultation document

Wiltshire and Swindon Branch of the GMB represent staff working within the Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust and also patients and potential patients of the trust. Wiltshire & Swindon GMB considers that the ‘consultation’ process is fundamentally flawed because it denies local people and staff the opportunity to discuss whether Foundation Status is desirable, sustainable or necessary, nor does it allow a full discussion of the implications of Foundation Status both for the local and national NHS.

Considering the large focus throughout the consultation document on the importance of the views of patient’s, local people and staff, it is ironic that all of these groups have been denied the right to have any say on whether or not they would like their local trust to convert to a Foundation Trust with all that entails.

Therefore although we are not specifically asked for views regarding the fundamental decision about Foundation Trust status, in line with GMB national policy and the feelings of local members to express our opposition to the prospect of the trust requesting Foundation status.

We believe that the consultation document is heavily biased, outlining the positives of a proposed change but no comment on any possible negative outcomes. Although the principle of Foundation Trust is not out for consultation, we should be give the full facts regarding what negatives there are.

The GMB Position regarding the principle of Foundation Trusts

GMB oppose the creation of Foundation Trusts. We consider this form of organisation as posing a real threat to the very existence of the National Health Service.

Many health experts agree that Foundation Trust status will introduce profit and competition into the NHS and mean that financially better off hospitals will be able to poach staff from less well off trusts.

With competition firmly rooted, NHS Trusts will compete with one another and will spell the end of the sharing of good practice that exists today. Instead Trusts will compete with one another and waist money on advertising etc.

The increasing marketisation of the NHS will inevitably threaten the national dimension of the NHS and in the long term threaten the universal principles which underpin Britain’s health service.

We are opposed to Foundation Status in principle because it is central to the government’s strategy of a competitive market in which Trusts compete with each other and with private companies for patients.

The more the Trust operates like a business the more patients and potential patients are subordinated to profit making.

Subjective/Misleading statements in the consultation document

“Main advantage of Foundation status is that it will bring us even closer to the people who work for us and the people we care for.”

In this section there is no mention of trade unions being an active part in this relationship. There is already an existing negotiating structure within the trust where trade unions and the employers communicate. It is not by any means clear how or what Foundation status will bring the trust closer to the needs of the local community, there is a huge variety of numbers engaging with existing trusts as members and the impact that they have in terms of strategic policy making and to services on the ground is not proven.

We also believe that the consultation is further flawed by the failure to include the governance arrangements in the consultation. The relationship between members, governors and the Board of Directors is critical because it will determine who has the power of decision. For instance, if there is a proposal to stop doing work currently done, owing to financial or other reasons., will the members have the power to vote down such a proposal?

“Healthcare is our Business”

The statements contained in this paragraph are subjective opinions promoted as facts. There is no evidence that Foundation status in itself will lead to the trust “focus(ing) on the needs of patients and our local population”. As far as the view of GMB is concerned Foundation status will mean that the priority of the trust will be financial rather than service based.

The consultation document certainly outlines the perceived benefits of this financial independence, however nothing is mentioned of some of the downsides to this. The Healthcare Commission found that being financially independent also carried risks for trusts, particularly with regards to introducing other policies and initiatives for example Payment by results caused Foundation Trusts serious organisational and financial difficulties.

There is continuing concern that by gaining financial freedom from National government the trust also looses the financial security which comes with that structure. The issue of what would happen where a Foundation Trust to become bankrupt has never been resolved and the potential impact on the national NHS is an unknown quantity.

“Foundation status will also give us more business and commercial opportunities to offer services in new and innovative ways.”

However the Guardian Dec 2004 survey of Chief Executives of Foundation Trusts found that the Chief Execs found themselves “tied up in red tape and denied the commercial flexibility they needed to prosper.”

Will there be better healthcare as a consequence of becoming a Foundation Trust?

The answer in the consultation document to this is evasive. However the Healthcare commission report Dec 2005 stated one of its findings “We did not find significant differences so far on readily available indicators of quality of and access to care between NHS foundation trusts as a whole group and other acute NHS Trusts.”

From national surveys of patients and staff, the Healthcare Commission found that “no significant differences were found between NHS Foundation Trusts and NHS Trusts in relation to experiences of patients, the attitude of staff and provision of care.”

Comments on the Consultation issues:

Although the GMB continue to be opposed to any NHS Trust becoming a Foundation trust we feel it is necessary to comment on the consultation as it is likely to be our only opportunity to do so.

Council of Governors

We believe that the proposal for only 3 staff governors on the Council of Governors is inadequate. The average quoted in the Healthcare Commission report in 2005 was of 5 staff governors. The current proposals are the legal minimum of staff reps allowed on the Council of Governors. The GMB believes that there should be maximum representation of staff on the Council of Governors (some trusts have up to 7). There is evidence to suggest that staff governors are invaluable to the Council of Governors in other trusts. Surrounded by evidence that often newly appointed governors find the role challenging, it is difficult to have influence and have poor training and support the Healthcare Commission found that “(staff governors) seemed to have an advantage over other governors due to a better understanding of the organisation and as members of staff working in the trust they have existing channels of communication to build on.”

It would also be preferable for there to be both representations of clinical and non clinical staff as staff governors to ensure it is not certain members of staff from certain backgrounds and experiences that are represented. There is no mention of this in the consultation document.

Staff involvement/impact on staff

So far as the staff are concerned your failure to commit to maintain NHS wages and conditions of service is an obvious worry. Since you will be able to hold onto ‘surpluses’ then inevitably you will be seeking to cut costs in order to maximise surpluses, and this will impact on staff as well as the work you do. The threat to hard won national terms and conditions for our members working at the trust is a big concern. The fact that national terms and conditions existing and future are not safeguarded for staff , the only comment made is that there are ‘no plans to change them yet’, does not reassure employees.

There is very little detail on how staff will be involved in the Foundation Trust in comparison to the other groups which are being engaged (local people and partners). Although the document states that staff governors will be included in the decisions regarding the strategic direction of the trust, the document fails to cover staff in anymore detail.

It is a requirement prior to recommendation from the Minister for the trust to develop an HR strategy to take them into and beyond transition to Foundation trust. This should be done in partnership with the staff/recognised trade unions. To date this has not happened within Swindon and Marlborough Trust. As a vitally important document for such a wide ranging change this document and preparation along with consultation with the unions regarding this issue should have begun some time ago. GMB has serious concerns that without this preparation the transition to Foundation Trust would be hugely problematic.

Board of Directors

There appears to be no representation of non clinical staff in the proposed make up of the Board of Directors. This would be vital to get a fair representation of the employees involved in service provision within the trust, especially as the majority of staff working within the hospital are non clinical staff.

Consultation on the change of the Trusts name

Ironically this appears to be the only thing that we are actually being fully consulted on.

The GMB consider this decision to be insignificant in comparison with the other issues relating to the possible move to Foundation status. The very requirement to change the name of the trust seems to demonstrate unnecessary bureaucracy and cost which would be better spent elsewhere.

General Points

The timescales are a concern, bearing in mind a decision could be made very quickly following the end of this consultation and we do not believe that the staff, patients or local people have had the opportunity to decide about whether Foundation status is the right decision for their local trust, let alone the detail of how a foundation trust should be run.

Finally, the Trust says that it is making the application because it has been instructed to do so by the government. Whilst it is certainly the aspiration of the government for all Trusts to become Foundation Trusts we can find nothing to show that all trusts are ‘instructed’ to make applications. The government has spoken of giving them all ‘the opportunity’ to do so. There are in fact only 73 Trusts so far that have become Foundations.

We can only conclude therefore that the Trust is making the application because it wants to gain the ‘freedoms’ this gives them. It is therefore supporting the government’s dismantling of the NHS rather than merely following instructions.

For all these reasons we are opposed to the application which is neither in the interests of staff nor service users.

Yours sincerely,

Michelle Gordon

Secretary, Wiltshire & Swindon GMB

Bila kubuka mataku. .dan lihat wajah-Mu. .ku terkagum
bila kulihat hidupku dan karya tangan-Mu ku tersanjung
karna semua yang baik dalam hidupku. .itulah karyaMu
kau beri kesempatan yang baru. .dan ku. .ingin mengenalMu Tuhan
lebih dalam dari semua yang kukenal. .tiada kasih yang melebihiMu
ku ada untuk menjadi penyembahMu. . .