UNISON's largest service group meets in conference tomorrow and Monday. http://www.unison.org.uk/conference/localgov.asp Here we give a rundown and venture some advice on the main issues...
After introductions and the SOC Report, Sunday morning is entirely given over to motions on social care. All should be supported as they are sensible, practical and achievable. Few of our membership groups - 300,000 in social care, 40,000 social workers - are subject to more regulation and scrutiny. Pilloried when something goes wrong, but rarely praised for the vast majority of their essential work. Personalisation can offer positive choice and increased control but not if it is used to further privatise public services, increasing risks to vulnerable people in the community and our members.
Motions 3 and 6 add substance but are too prescriptive and tie the hands of those working with the Taskforce. They re-write work already done, as well as conceding the creation of the Social Work College, and misrepresent a National Grade and Pay structure for Social Workers when in reality National Role Profiles are what have been agreed and are currently being worked on. These are minor qualifications and will hopefully be ironed out in a composite.
Sunday afternoon sees motion 15 on Public Sector Redundancies in a Composite with 14, 14.1 and 16 setting out a clear approach to the massive threat to employment. Following the election of the Con Dem coalition we have seen a line up of politicians frothing at the mouth in a rabid rush to attack public services.
The choice of Eric Pickles as CLG Minister, with his past record of wide scale privatisation in Bradford (using a Mayor's casting vote to do so!) shows the Government's agenda. Our members - ‘victims’ of the financial-capitalist meltdown the same as others - are now being cast as the ‘problem’. But cutting public services on such a scale will lead to higher unemployment and tremendous damage to our communities and local economies. The composite also highlights how employers are cynically using the cuts ‘agenda’ to cut deeper than necessary.
Whilst we need to robustly respond politically and campaign to oppose the slash and burn approach of the Government we also need to ensure all our Branches are geared up to face the threats we will have to meet in the very near future. There is a need for strategic approaches to protect members’ job security - sustainable answers not just isolated fixes. This requires a pragmatic approach that recognises resistance as necessary whilst understanding that opposition all the time, every time, will not deliver.
Amendment 14.2 from Glasgow City remains outside the Composite - on the face of it seeming to argue against campaigning to oppose freezing Council Tax. Is it implying that Council Tax freezes do benefit the lowest earners - because all the evidence shows otherwise? Or that Council Tax freezes can be made without cutting services? Or a Council Tax freeze can work if the shortfall is made up from alternative national funding, as may be proposed by a party in Scotland? If it is then that point (or any other) could have been made clearly. But simply taking out paragraphs that are true and not replacing them with anything else is confusing and leaves the motion weaker. For that reason the amendment should be opposed. Support the Composite - oppose the Glasgow amendment.
That’s followed, in every sense, by motion 28 Adult Funding Cuts and Redundancies in Further Education. Already colleges in England had lost £250 million of funding before the new Government had even announced the £6.2 billion public cuts in year 1. This will have a devastating impact on our colleges and local communities. Colleges face redundancies of over 10%. So support 28 and send FE colleagues a message of solidarity in this major struggle.
Then we move to motion 20 Total Place. The SGE motion rightly identifies the outcome-focus of Total Place will go beyond local government and touch every aspect of public service provision. The basic principle is not that new (despite what 20.1 suggests); to deliver improved outcomes and generate savings through efficiencies of management and scale by more collaborative working across public bodies.
We have never opposed improving accountable services at the point of delivery and our members rely on them as much as provide them. The SGE recognises that in an era of spending cuts this could be skewed heavily towards savings rather than outcomes and that accountability and engagement are key for UNISON at all levels, including in and with our communities.
The ideas behind Total Place resonate regardless of the economic situation but there’s no doubt the deficit gives it impetus. It’s precisely because of this we need to be part of the growing debate - one that touches on the very shape of our society. What a pity, then, that Lambeth take a wholly negative approach in their amendment 20.1 and place the burden of responsibility firmly on Trades Councils (historically important but organisationally weak and the coverage of which is far from universal). Support 20, 20.2 and 20.3 - oppose 20.1.
Motion 21 is on the Two-Tier Workforce. The statutory Code was introduced to protect new employees appointed to undertake work on a contract previously subject to a TUPE transfer. It is meant to ensure they are afforded terms and conditions no less favourable than those of the originally transferred employees. This prevents companies (or should prevent them) from filling vacancies with new employees on lesser conditions which over time, through natural turnover of staff, will see the original conditions disappear.
The motion restates the importance of the statutory Code, despite it being in need of fresh paint, and recognises we need to make sure branches and regions (and newer activists and staff) are aware of its value and how to use it. All straightforward and common sense ... so why is amendment 21.2 seeking to delete reference to using the Code as an organising tool? If new starters on these contracts know that UNISON is actively pursuing adherence to the Code, and is organised within that employer, then surely they are more likely to join and get active. So the Code, for all that it needs updating, is an organising tool. Why would we delete that? Support 21 and 21.1 - oppose 21.2.
Monday morning kicks off with Pensions. Under threat. Listen. Enough said.
Who would have predicted Libraries as a political battleground? Ask Wirral branch who led a successful community campaign against closures. Motion 29 Love Your Libraries puts the case for modern Libraries as community hubs rather than just the traditional image of rows of bookshelves.
Monday afternoon starts with education. Newcastle City’s motion 36 School Support Staff is timely given the new Government’s foolhardy and misguided (or deliberate?) invitation to all schools to become academies. Schools members can feel ‘untouched and forgotten’ and this motion addresses how we can engage and empower them (including dedicated projects running in many regions) to be organised and representative for the challenges ahead; not least the complex task of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. Support 36.
Near the end come motions 37, 38 and 39 on Pay and Bargaining. The NJC is the largest national bargaining group in the UK but currently the employers refuse to even discuss pay. Yet maintaining national machinery is a serious issue; local or regional bargaining is not viable with our current density levels and any short term attraction this offers during a pay freeze is sniffing at a false dawn.
In the North West there are 41 council branches but not one has the 50% membership density to support statutory recognition - and the North West density is amongst the highest in the country! With facility agreements already under attack how long could a branch sustain local bargaining before the Council moves on derecognition and stops DOCAS? And what then?
This is why we must maintain the campaign over pay, however difficult that is, and increasingly broaden its sophistication. Newcastle’s motion builds on several years of the NW and Northern Regions calling for this approach. It shows how pay can be viewed not just as the amount coming into your purse but balancing that against what goes out. If we can cut childcare costs, increase skills to open up career development, and other ‘indirect pay’ initiatives within a bargaining agreement then we are increasing the real value of our members’ pay.
