From The Socialist
THE NEW government work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, plans the biggest attack on the rights of the most vulnerable people in society in a generation. His plans are presented as an attempt "to improve the quality of life for the worst off in society" but resemble more the 1834 poor law when paupers were forced into the gruelling regime of the workhouse!
Paul Callanan
While this former Tory leader pointed out that many on the dole receive more in benefits than they would earn from a low paid job, his plans will actually attack the claimants rather than his big business mates who are looking for cheap labour.
Labour's previous cheap labour job creation schemes - 'future jobs scheme' and 'flexible new deal' - will be scrapped in favour of a 'community task force' in which unemployed people will be forced to work for voluntary organisations for their dole money. The scheme is likely to be used to drive down the wages, terms and conditions of people who are presently employed.
Many workers fear that the government will try to use claimants as a scab labour force to do the jobs of workers in the course of expected trade union battles over public sector cuts.
The disabled and ill are also in for huge assaults on their living standards under the new plans. People in need of incapacity allowance already find it difficult to claim any benefits under the present strict Work Capability Assessment. Now, all existing receivers of the incapacity allowance will be forced to endure this draconian assessment.
IDS says his only goal is to tackle poverty and help the worst off in society. But rather than eliminating poverty these measures will allow the government to massage the statistics. The choice facing people on benefits will now be poverty on the dole or poverty at work.
To fight these attacks we need to build a mass movement of trade unionists, the unemployed and community campaigners. We need to put forward a clear socialist alternative to the diet of cuts proposed by the politicians and their big business pay masters.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Coming Up in Greenwich
Socialist Party Branch Meeetings:
The Communist Manifesto and it's relevence today
Thursday 3rd of June
Glyndon Community Center
75 Raglan Road
Plumstead
SE18 7LB
Marxists and Religion
Thursday 10th June
Glyndon Community Center
75 Raglan Road
Plumstead
SE18 7LB
The Communist Manifesto and it's relevence today
Thursday 3rd of June
Glyndon Community Center
75 Raglan Road
Plumstead
SE18 7LB
Marxists and Religion
Thursday 10th June
Glyndon Community Center
75 Raglan Road
Plumstead
SE18 7LB
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
By Onay Kasab
In each bulletin we will highlight your rights in different areas. In this bulletin we highlight the rights of agency workers. Agency workers do not have the automatic right to a permanent job, no matter how long the worker has been engaged by a particular employer. Despite this, Socialist Party member Onay Kasab when Unison Branch Secretary won permanent jobs for over 60 agency workers through campaigning on their behalf.
Despite not having permanent job rights, agency workers do have some rights. They are:
The agency must pay you for every hour of work
They must not ask for money to find you work
The agency must tell you in writing how much they are paying you, your terms and conditions and what type of work they will find for you
The agency cannot take money out of your pay for things like equipment, protective clothing or uniforms unless they tell you and you agree
They can charge for extra services, but cannot make you use these services as a condition for finding you work
You also have a right to things like paid holiday and rest breaks.
If there is a union in your workplace, you can join. Unions can and do organise agency workers. They can also win on your behalf as we did in Greenwich.
In each bulletin we will highlight your rights in different areas. In this bulletin we highlight the rights of agency workers. Agency workers do not have the automatic right to a permanent job, no matter how long the worker has been engaged by a particular employer. Despite this, Socialist Party member Onay Kasab when Unison Branch Secretary won permanent jobs for over 60 agency workers through campaigning on their behalf.
Despite not having permanent job rights, agency workers do have some rights. They are:
The agency must pay you for every hour of work
They must not ask for money to find you work
The agency must tell you in writing how much they are paying you, your terms and conditions and what type of work they will find for you
The agency cannot take money out of your pay for things like equipment, protective clothing or uniforms unless they tell you and you agree
They can charge for extra services, but cannot make you use these services as a condition for finding you work
You also have a right to things like paid holiday and rest breaks.
If there is a union in your workplace, you can join. Unions can and do organise agency workers. They can also win on your behalf as we did in Greenwich.
Our Record
By Onay Kasab
The Socialist Party has a long and proud record of defending our class. We have been to the forefront in defending jobs, services and pay. It is important that these victories are remembered. They show that we can win, that we do not have to accept a diet of cuts. But these victories also show the importance of leadership and correct strategy. In each bulletin, we will highlight these campaigns and the lessons they have for today.
SINGLE STATUS – A VICTORY FOR GREENWICH WORKERS
In 1997 local government employers signed a national agreement with the trade unions, the Single Status Agreement. National union leaders claimed that the deal was historic and that it would end low pay forever as well bringing equal pay for women. But Socialist Party members in Unison, the largest Union in Greenwich, correctly warned at the time that the agreement would in fact lead to pay cuts. The agreement was not funded, meaning that the employers would equalise pay by harmonising downwards, cutting the pay of men. We also warned that the employers would use single status as an excuse to cut conditions generally.
By 2006 a number of equal pay cases meant that local government employers were compelled to deal with equal pay. Greenwich Council put forward its proposals. They included:
Pay cuts of up to £130 a week
An increase in the working week with no extra pay
Reductions in annual leave
Cuts to car allowances
Withdrawal of overtime pay and enhancements for weekend and evening working
While this was supposed to be about fairer pay for women, even homecare workers, all of whom were women faced pay cuts. The modest car allowance being cut would also hit this group disproportionatly. A car is essential if homecare workers are to see all their clients in the extremely tight time allotted for travelling between clients homes. Incredibly one Labour Councillor said she only cared about women which was why she supported the proposals! Even more incredibly she claimed that anybody paid in excess of £3000 a year was well paid!
Unisons London regional officials, wedded to New Labour and keen to avoid any confrontation with their chums on the Council advised the union branch that it could be worse and that the local Unison branch, Greenwich Unison, led by Socialist Party member Onay Kasab must accept the proposals. This approach was rejected immediately. The Greenwich Unison Branch built mass meetings of Council workers where a strategy proposed by Onay Kasab to fight the Councils attack on its workers was agreed. The campaign included mass lobbies of the Council and a massive publicity campaign with several publications going out to workers at their home addresses. Crucially, the mass meetings agreed to fight the cuts with strike action if the Council went ahead.
The campaign agreed to reject “concession bargaining” and instead agreed the slogan “Not a single penny from a single member”. The branch agreed to make the old trade union tradition “United We Stand” a reality. The concession bargaining approach would have led to negotiating the rate of pay to be cut or the numbers of staff to have their pay cut. In a number of other Councils this approach has led to unions claiming a victory when the number of staff to have their pay cut has been reduced. But in Greenwich the approach was different. In Greenwich the approach was to protect every member. This approach united manual and clerical staff, men and women. This approach scared the national union leadership who feared it could spread. The level of paranoia was illustrated by threats from the union to discipline Onay Kasab for using the slogan “Not a penny from our pay, nor an hour on the day”. This slogan was used by the miners in the 1926 General Strike. By 2007, cowardly union officials decided that it had become a disciplinary offence. National and London Unison officials wanted Onay to act like the TUC did in 1926, where the workers were sold out by the TUC’s so called leaders. Unisons London leaders claimed that some workers would have to lose so that others could gain. Once again this approach was rejected by Onay Kasab. After initially threatening to impose the cuts, the Council eventually backed down. A total 100% victory was won by the Socialist Party led Greenwich Unison branch. The details of the final agreement were:
Immediate grade increases for all manual workers
All white collar job grades to be reviewed with a guarantee of no pay cuts as a result of lifetime pay protection. Many of these reviews have led to pay increases
Overtime payments, enhancements and pay for weekend and evening working to remain. In fact for many overtime rates increased as a result of the increase in the hourly rate following grade increases.
Compensation for past unequal pay. Some workers received lump sums of £17,000
No increase in working hours. The working week was reduced for manual workers from 36 down to 35, the standard white collar working week.
Annual leave for manual workers was increased to match white collar levels
Car allowances were protected for current staff.
Members were allowed to vote on the final proposals. This was in line with the principles of democracy enacted throughout the campaign. It was a major point for the branch that no agreement could be made with the employers without the members agreeing to it first. It is a tragedy that so many union campaigns end badly where negotiators reach an agreement with the employers then try to sell the agreement to the members. This is the wrong way around. It is the job of the trade union to put proposals to the members for agreement, not to agree with the employers beforehand. Another important lesson was that local stewards were involved in negotiations with the employers where the talks concerned their particular department. This ensured that the employers could not misrepresent negotiations to the workers.
This was the best “single status” agreement in the country. But the national union has failed to publicise this brilliant victory in Greenwich, despite the gains made for workers, especially the lowest paid. The reason is because the union at a national level prefers to compromise, which time after time means in reality agreeing pay cuts. But the victory in Greenwich has shown what can be done with the correct strategy and a fighting Socialist leadership.
The Socialist Party has a long and proud record of defending our class. We have been to the forefront in defending jobs, services and pay. It is important that these victories are remembered. They show that we can win, that we do not have to accept a diet of cuts. But these victories also show the importance of leadership and correct strategy. In each bulletin, we will highlight these campaigns and the lessons they have for today.
SINGLE STATUS – A VICTORY FOR GREENWICH WORKERS
In 1997 local government employers signed a national agreement with the trade unions, the Single Status Agreement. National union leaders claimed that the deal was historic and that it would end low pay forever as well bringing equal pay for women. But Socialist Party members in Unison, the largest Union in Greenwich, correctly warned at the time that the agreement would in fact lead to pay cuts. The agreement was not funded, meaning that the employers would equalise pay by harmonising downwards, cutting the pay of men. We also warned that the employers would use single status as an excuse to cut conditions generally.
By 2006 a number of equal pay cases meant that local government employers were compelled to deal with equal pay. Greenwich Council put forward its proposals. They included:
Pay cuts of up to £130 a week
An increase in the working week with no extra pay
Reductions in annual leave
Cuts to car allowances
Withdrawal of overtime pay and enhancements for weekend and evening working
While this was supposed to be about fairer pay for women, even homecare workers, all of whom were women faced pay cuts. The modest car allowance being cut would also hit this group disproportionatly. A car is essential if homecare workers are to see all their clients in the extremely tight time allotted for travelling between clients homes. Incredibly one Labour Councillor said she only cared about women which was why she supported the proposals! Even more incredibly she claimed that anybody paid in excess of £3000 a year was well paid!
Unisons London regional officials, wedded to New Labour and keen to avoid any confrontation with their chums on the Council advised the union branch that it could be worse and that the local Unison branch, Greenwich Unison, led by Socialist Party member Onay Kasab must accept the proposals. This approach was rejected immediately. The Greenwich Unison Branch built mass meetings of Council workers where a strategy proposed by Onay Kasab to fight the Councils attack on its workers was agreed. The campaign included mass lobbies of the Council and a massive publicity campaign with several publications going out to workers at their home addresses. Crucially, the mass meetings agreed to fight the cuts with strike action if the Council went ahead.
The campaign agreed to reject “concession bargaining” and instead agreed the slogan “Not a single penny from a single member”. The branch agreed to make the old trade union tradition “United We Stand” a reality. The concession bargaining approach would have led to negotiating the rate of pay to be cut or the numbers of staff to have their pay cut. In a number of other Councils this approach has led to unions claiming a victory when the number of staff to have their pay cut has been reduced. But in Greenwich the approach was different. In Greenwich the approach was to protect every member. This approach united manual and clerical staff, men and women. This approach scared the national union leadership who feared it could spread. The level of paranoia was illustrated by threats from the union to discipline Onay Kasab for using the slogan “Not a penny from our pay, nor an hour on the day”. This slogan was used by the miners in the 1926 General Strike. By 2007, cowardly union officials decided that it had become a disciplinary offence. National and London Unison officials wanted Onay to act like the TUC did in 1926, where the workers were sold out by the TUC’s so called leaders. Unisons London leaders claimed that some workers would have to lose so that others could gain. Once again this approach was rejected by Onay Kasab. After initially threatening to impose the cuts, the Council eventually backed down. A total 100% victory was won by the Socialist Party led Greenwich Unison branch. The details of the final agreement were:
Immediate grade increases for all manual workers
All white collar job grades to be reviewed with a guarantee of no pay cuts as a result of lifetime pay protection. Many of these reviews have led to pay increases
Overtime payments, enhancements and pay for weekend and evening working to remain. In fact for many overtime rates increased as a result of the increase in the hourly rate following grade increases.
Compensation for past unequal pay. Some workers received lump sums of £17,000
No increase in working hours. The working week was reduced for manual workers from 36 down to 35, the standard white collar working week.
Annual leave for manual workers was increased to match white collar levels
Car allowances were protected for current staff.
Members were allowed to vote on the final proposals. This was in line with the principles of democracy enacted throughout the campaign. It was a major point for the branch that no agreement could be made with the employers without the members agreeing to it first. It is a tragedy that so many union campaigns end badly where negotiators reach an agreement with the employers then try to sell the agreement to the members. This is the wrong way around. It is the job of the trade union to put proposals to the members for agreement, not to agree with the employers beforehand. Another important lesson was that local stewards were involved in negotiations with the employers where the talks concerned their particular department. This ensured that the employers could not misrepresent negotiations to the workers.
This was the best “single status” agreement in the country. But the national union has failed to publicise this brilliant victory in Greenwich, despite the gains made for workers, especially the lowest paid. The reason is because the union at a national level prefers to compromise, which time after time means in reality agreeing pay cuts. But the victory in Greenwich has shown what can be done with the correct strategy and a fighting Socialist leadership.
School student socialist
From this weeks The Socialist
Thursday 6 May was a very important day for me. Not only was the future of our country being decided, but I was standing for election, as a Socialist Party candidate. Granted, it was only my school mock election, but it was an exciting and, often, nerve-wracking experience nonetheless.
Anna Edgar
I stood as a socialist in this election because, from what I have read of it, the Socialist Party is a party that works for genuine change, unlike the three main parties which are, apart from a few minor differentiations, really the same. Furthermore, I think that the Socialist Party deals with issues head-on, rather than offering only verbal support.
Another reason I was interested in the Socialist Party was probably because of my background - my mum's Russian and grew up in the USSR, so I have heard from her about the positive aspects of the USSR government, as well as the negative aspects which Western media focus on.
As I go to a private school, I never really expected that the socialists would win there. Too many of my school friends have wealthy banker parents, whom the Socialist Party is not particularly well-disposed towards.
Nonetheless, armed with a hastily written speech and a bundle of posters and leaflets (thanks Suzanne) I stood for election.
Despite campaigning by myself and other school socialists, we came fifth out of six parties - followed only by the Green Party. The Liberal Democrats won, with the Monster Raving Loony Party taking second place.
The problem was that not enough people actually evaluated the policies of the individual parties, and made an informed decision on that account.
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed campaigning for the Socialist Party and finding out more about it - and maybe, someday, I'll be standing for election as a real socialist candidate!.
Thursday 6 May was a very important day for me. Not only was the future of our country being decided, but I was standing for election, as a Socialist Party candidate. Granted, it was only my school mock election, but it was an exciting and, often, nerve-wracking experience nonetheless.
Anna Edgar
I stood as a socialist in this election because, from what I have read of it, the Socialist Party is a party that works for genuine change, unlike the three main parties which are, apart from a few minor differentiations, really the same. Furthermore, I think that the Socialist Party deals with issues head-on, rather than offering only verbal support.
Another reason I was interested in the Socialist Party was probably because of my background - my mum's Russian and grew up in the USSR, so I have heard from her about the positive aspects of the USSR government, as well as the negative aspects which Western media focus on.
As I go to a private school, I never really expected that the socialists would win there. Too many of my school friends have wealthy banker parents, whom the Socialist Party is not particularly well-disposed towards.
Nonetheless, armed with a hastily written speech and a bundle of posters and leaflets (thanks Suzanne) I stood for election.
Despite campaigning by myself and other school socialists, we came fifth out of six parties - followed only by the Green Party. The Liberal Democrats won, with the Monster Raving Loony Party taking second place.
The problem was that not enough people actually evaluated the policies of the individual parties, and made an informed decision on that account.
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed campaigning for the Socialist Party and finding out more about it - and maybe, someday, I'll be standing for election as a real socialist candidate!.
BEGIN THE FIGHTBACK!
By Onay Kasab
The general election has produced a Con-Dem coalition that is preparing in turn to condemn our communities to years of devastation. Public services are going to be massacred. Jobs are going to be slashed. No section of the working class will be left untouched, young and old, unemployed or in work, we will be expected by the government to pay the cost of the economic crisis. There is a remarkable acceptance in the media that the budget deficit has to be paid for by us, despite the fact that we played no part in its creation. The economy, and indeed the capitalist system, had to be bailed out to the tune of billions following the greedy grabbing of bankers and financiers who thought of nobody but themselves when looting the finance system for their own personal gain. Now these same bankers are again making profits after being bailed out by the rest of us after their system came close to collapse as a result of their selfish greed. So why should we now pay for the debt left following the bail out? None of the major parties are willing to make the bankers pay. Instead, they are going to force us to pay through massive public sector cuts and job losses. While the coalition prepares to make the cuts, we should not let the Labour Party rewrite history. They made clear when campaigning during the election that they too would be making cuts. In Greenwich the Labour Council is preparing £30 million of cuts. Schools have already begun cutting jobs, care workers are to have their pay cut by £5000 per year, Youth and Play Services face privatisation and libraries face closure. The answer is therefore not to fall for the game of in and out played by the major parties who take it in turn to look after big business while cutting our services and attacking the working and middle class. While those with memories of the viciousness of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher held there noses and voted Labour in an effort to keep the Tories out, all three major parties give the same answer on the question of the economy. Clegg and Cameron have shown just how low they are willing to go in defending there class. The poor and low paid will be hammered while big business will be further protected with cuts to corporation tax. This is clear when you consider the cuts being proposed to welfare benefits. It is a fact that disability for many is accompanied by poverty. Disability Living Allowance is a non means tested benefit that does not impact negatively on other benefits such as Council Tax or Housing Benefit. It makes a huge difference to the lives of disabled people. Now the new government is considering measures to cut the numbers of disabled people allowed to claim it. While unemployment is over 2 million and 500,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a result of public sector cuts the government wants to force the unemployed to work for their benefits. This could mean a 35 hour week on less than the minimum wage. Cuts to housing benefit will lead to poorer families being housed in ghettos of low-rental homes. Even proposals to cut the income tax threshold to £10,000 will not benefit the lowest paid workers who are in receipt of rent rebates or council tax benefit. They will see no advantage as the increased net income will mean more of there income will be taken into account when calculating benefits. In fact some may have to pay increased council tax or rents as a result! The Lib Dems will not act as a brake on the anti working class policies of the Tories. The Tories had planned to cut tax credits for families who earn in excess of £40,000. The Lib Dems believe it should be set at £25,000!
Now is the time to begin the fightback. The Labour Party in opposition can not be relied on to lead a fight. We have already seen that they are just as willing to make cuts. What we need is community campaigns with the involvement of trade unions and those who rely on public services to lead the fightback. The Socialist Party will be at the forefront of this fight against the attacks on public services, jobs and our living standards. We will be building an Anti Cuts Alliance in Greenwich to fight the cuts. But we do need national action. We demand a national demonstration against cuts and attacks on our public services.
The general election has produced a Con-Dem coalition that is preparing in turn to condemn our communities to years of devastation. Public services are going to be massacred. Jobs are going to be slashed. No section of the working class will be left untouched, young and old, unemployed or in work, we will be expected by the government to pay the cost of the economic crisis. There is a remarkable acceptance in the media that the budget deficit has to be paid for by us, despite the fact that we played no part in its creation. The economy, and indeed the capitalist system, had to be bailed out to the tune of billions following the greedy grabbing of bankers and financiers who thought of nobody but themselves when looting the finance system for their own personal gain. Now these same bankers are again making profits after being bailed out by the rest of us after their system came close to collapse as a result of their selfish greed. So why should we now pay for the debt left following the bail out? None of the major parties are willing to make the bankers pay. Instead, they are going to force us to pay through massive public sector cuts and job losses. While the coalition prepares to make the cuts, we should not let the Labour Party rewrite history. They made clear when campaigning during the election that they too would be making cuts. In Greenwich the Labour Council is preparing £30 million of cuts. Schools have already begun cutting jobs, care workers are to have their pay cut by £5000 per year, Youth and Play Services face privatisation and libraries face closure. The answer is therefore not to fall for the game of in and out played by the major parties who take it in turn to look after big business while cutting our services and attacking the working and middle class. While those with memories of the viciousness of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher held there noses and voted Labour in an effort to keep the Tories out, all three major parties give the same answer on the question of the economy. Clegg and Cameron have shown just how low they are willing to go in defending there class. The poor and low paid will be hammered while big business will be further protected with cuts to corporation tax. This is clear when you consider the cuts being proposed to welfare benefits. It is a fact that disability for many is accompanied by poverty. Disability Living Allowance is a non means tested benefit that does not impact negatively on other benefits such as Council Tax or Housing Benefit. It makes a huge difference to the lives of disabled people. Now the new government is considering measures to cut the numbers of disabled people allowed to claim it. While unemployment is over 2 million and 500,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a result of public sector cuts the government wants to force the unemployed to work for their benefits. This could mean a 35 hour week on less than the minimum wage. Cuts to housing benefit will lead to poorer families being housed in ghettos of low-rental homes. Even proposals to cut the income tax threshold to £10,000 will not benefit the lowest paid workers who are in receipt of rent rebates or council tax benefit. They will see no advantage as the increased net income will mean more of there income will be taken into account when calculating benefits. In fact some may have to pay increased council tax or rents as a result! The Lib Dems will not act as a brake on the anti working class policies of the Tories. The Tories had planned to cut tax credits for families who earn in excess of £40,000. The Lib Dems believe it should be set at £25,000!
Now is the time to begin the fightback. The Labour Party in opposition can not be relied on to lead a fight. We have already seen that they are just as willing to make cuts. What we need is community campaigns with the involvement of trade unions and those who rely on public services to lead the fightback. The Socialist Party will be at the forefront of this fight against the attacks on public services, jobs and our living standards. We will be building an Anti Cuts Alliance in Greenwich to fight the cuts. But we do need national action. We demand a national demonstration against cuts and attacks on our public services.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Urgent Dawn raids on Unison offices!
Ban imposed on four unison branch leaders
Following the mitigation hearings Glenn Kelly (Bromely), Suzanne Muna (Housing Association), Onay Kasab (Greenwich) and Brian Debus (Hackney) have all been banned from holding any office in Unison.
Early this morning (5th March) UNISON officials turned up at the UNISON offices of the Bromley, Greenwich and the Housing Association having given no notice; we are awaiting an update from Hackney. The officials have attempted to confiscate computer hard drives and other resources, which include important documents on on-going personal cases.
The officials intend to run elections for new branch officers but as has happened in other branches they may well try to run the branches themselves which has led to moribund UNISON branches.
The Four have conducted a determined and high profile campaign which has meant that it has taken nearly 3 years to get them banned from office. The mitigation hearings also concluded that the length of the bans will be reduced by between 1 and 3 years.
However, this morning's action shows the vicious reality of the UNISON leaderships attacks on socialist activists within the union.
The four are urging supporters to phone or e-mail UNISON Head Office now to protest against the ban and the raids of the branch offices.
What we need you to do:
1. Let as many unison members as possible know what is happening
2. E-mail letters of protest to:
UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk
UNISON London Region: greaterlondonregion@unison.co.uk
3. Phone UNISON Head Office to express your disgust on 0845 355 0845
4. Pass a motion at your next meeting to be sent to Dave Prentis.
5. Funds are urgently needed for leaflets, publicity and legal costs.
Cheques payable to: 'Stop the Witch-Hunt' and should be sent to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG.
6. Please let us know details of your protests - e-mail us at: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.
Following the mitigation hearings Glenn Kelly (Bromely), Suzanne Muna (Housing Association), Onay Kasab (Greenwich) and Brian Debus (Hackney) have all been banned from holding any office in Unison.
Early this morning (5th March) UNISON officials turned up at the UNISON offices of the Bromley, Greenwich and the Housing Association having given no notice; we are awaiting an update from Hackney. The officials have attempted to confiscate computer hard drives and other resources, which include important documents on on-going personal cases.
The officials intend to run elections for new branch officers but as has happened in other branches they may well try to run the branches themselves which has led to moribund UNISON branches.
The Four have conducted a determined and high profile campaign which has meant that it has taken nearly 3 years to get them banned from office. The mitigation hearings also concluded that the length of the bans will be reduced by between 1 and 3 years.
However, this morning's action shows the vicious reality of the UNISON leaderships attacks on socialist activists within the union.
The four are urging supporters to phone or e-mail UNISON Head Office now to protest against the ban and the raids of the branch offices.
What we need you to do:
1. Let as many unison members as possible know what is happening
2. E-mail letters of protest to:
UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk
UNISON London Region: greaterlondonregion@unison.co.uk
3. Phone UNISON Head Office to express your disgust on 0845 355 0845
4. Pass a motion at your next meeting to be sent to Dave Prentis.
5. Funds are urgently needed for leaflets, publicity and legal costs.
Cheques payable to: 'Stop the Witch-Hunt' and should be sent to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG.
6. Please let us know details of your protests - e-mail us at: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.
Activists launch socialist challenge
from this weeks The Socialist
OVER 60 people attended a meeting in Greenwich, south east London, for a joint 'defend the four' and 'TUSC launch' meeting.
Paul Callanan
'Defend the four' is the campaign organised in defence of the four Unison members who have been politically witch-hunted by the union's right wing officials for the 'crime' of being Socialist Party members (see stopthe witchhunt.org.uk - also, see Nominate Roger Bannister).
TUSC (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition) is a coalition of left parties and union members which is fielding a number of candidates in the 2010 general election. It includes the Socialist Party, and is backed by many leading trade unionists.
The first speaker was Glenn Kelly - one of the 'four' - who told the meeting that the Unison bureaucrats had actually done the Socialist Party a favour "as there are now more left activists and stewards than before the witch-hunt started. Every time they kick out a left branch secretary there will be another one to step into their place", he added.
Glenn also spoke about the disgraceful ruling from the four's recent employment tribunal which, contrary to the evidence presented, decided that they had not been disciplined by the union leadership for their political views. Instead, the tribunal branded 'Trotskyism' as "repugnant" and the four not worthy of protection.
In a clearly political judgment the tribunal made no distinction between democratic socialist views and Stalinist ones. Glenn said that it was an insult to the Trotskyists in Stalin's Russia who were murdered for their defence of genuine socialism.
Elections
Lewisham Socialist Party councillor Ian Page spoke about the successful campaigning work that he and fellow Socialist Party councillor Chris Flood had done on behalf of their constituents.
The Socialist Party is the only party in the council chamber to fight against the public sector cuts being forced through by all the other parties. He also appealed for everyone possible to go to Lewisham and help out with the campaign for their re-election and the election of a third Socialist Party candidate, Jess Leech.
The last speaker was Onay "Kaz" Kasab, witch-hunted Greenwich Unison branch secretary and TUSC candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich in the forthcoming general election.
He is standing in the election to give working-class people, disenfranchised by the ruling est-ablishment parties, a voice. He will be the constituency's only anti-cuts, anti-privatisation and anti-war candidate in this election.
Afterwards, over 20 people volunteered to help out with the election campaign with three people filling out cards requesting more information on the Socialist Party.
Visit the TUSC website:
www.tusc.org.uk
OVER 60 people attended a meeting in Greenwich, south east London, for a joint 'defend the four' and 'TUSC launch' meeting.
Paul Callanan
'Defend the four' is the campaign organised in defence of the four Unison members who have been politically witch-hunted by the union's right wing officials for the 'crime' of being Socialist Party members (see stopthe witchhunt.org.uk - also, see Nominate Roger Bannister).
TUSC (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition) is a coalition of left parties and union members which is fielding a number of candidates in the 2010 general election. It includes the Socialist Party, and is backed by many leading trade unionists.
The first speaker was Glenn Kelly - one of the 'four' - who told the meeting that the Unison bureaucrats had actually done the Socialist Party a favour "as there are now more left activists and stewards than before the witch-hunt started. Every time they kick out a left branch secretary there will be another one to step into their place", he added.
Glenn also spoke about the disgraceful ruling from the four's recent employment tribunal which, contrary to the evidence presented, decided that they had not been disciplined by the union leadership for their political views. Instead, the tribunal branded 'Trotskyism' as "repugnant" and the four not worthy of protection.
In a clearly political judgment the tribunal made no distinction between democratic socialist views and Stalinist ones. Glenn said that it was an insult to the Trotskyists in Stalin's Russia who were murdered for their defence of genuine socialism.
Elections
Lewisham Socialist Party councillor Ian Page spoke about the successful campaigning work that he and fellow Socialist Party councillor Chris Flood had done on behalf of their constituents.
The Socialist Party is the only party in the council chamber to fight against the public sector cuts being forced through by all the other parties. He also appealed for everyone possible to go to Lewisham and help out with the campaign for their re-election and the election of a third Socialist Party candidate, Jess Leech.
The last speaker was Onay "Kaz" Kasab, witch-hunted Greenwich Unison branch secretary and TUSC candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich in the forthcoming general election.
He is standing in the election to give working-class people, disenfranchised by the ruling est-ablishment parties, a voice. He will be the constituency's only anti-cuts, anti-privatisation and anti-war candidate in this election.
Afterwards, over 20 people volunteered to help out with the election campaign with three people filling out cards requesting more information on the Socialist Party.
Visit the TUSC website:
www.tusc.org.uk
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Unison witch-hunt: Employment Tribunal
Trotskyism on trial
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
Unison general secretary election: Fighting leadership needed!
From this weeks The Socialist
Whoever wins the general election, members of Britain's largest public sector union Unison, like all other public service workers, are in for a hard time. All three capitalist parties have declared their intention to make the working class pay for the financial crisis through attacks on jobs, pay, pensions and public services.
Roger Bannister, with over 33 years of trade union experience and activity, is standing for general secretary of Unison. If elected he will lead Unison members, along with other public sector workers to fight against these attacks.
The union's leadership has to date failed to use the union's full strength to maximum effect. In fact it has signed disastrous deals, such as the Single Status Agreement, instead of fighting for decent pay. Now thousands of Unison members, mainly women, face pay cuts in the name of equal pay!
See Roger's blog here http://rogerbannister-unison.blogspot.com/
Whoever wins the general election, members of Britain's largest public sector union Unison, like all other public service workers, are in for a hard time. All three capitalist parties have declared their intention to make the working class pay for the financial crisis through attacks on jobs, pay, pensions and public services.
Roger Bannister, with over 33 years of trade union experience and activity, is standing for general secretary of Unison. If elected he will lead Unison members, along with other public sector workers to fight against these attacks.
The union's leadership has to date failed to use the union's full strength to maximum effect. In fact it has signed disastrous deals, such as the Single Status Agreement, instead of fighting for decent pay. Now thousands of Unison members, mainly women, face pay cuts in the name of equal pay!
See Roger's blog here http://rogerbannister-unison.blogspot.com/
Greenwich Unison backs victimised branch secretary
From this weeks The Socialist
THE 2010 annual meeting (AGM) of the Greenwich Unison branch has unanimously backed Onay Kasab, the witch-hunted secretary of the branch who currently faces a three-year ban from holding office in the union.
Members angrily denounced the ban at the packed meeting - yet Unison claims that it is taking the action against the four Socialist Party members in the name of ordinary members!
As though to rub salt in the wound, that same morning the union office received a leaflet from current general secretary Dave Prentis asking that the branch nominate him in the general secretary election. Prentis says in his statement that the union is a "democratic and member led union that takes its lead from our members". So why has he ignored the deluge of protest letters sent to him demanding an end to the witch-hunt?
The AGM heard from Onay about the huge fight ahead against the expected attack on public services and how we need strong, campaigning, militant unions to defend jobs and services. He told the meeting that despite the ban, the priority was the union branch. He asked members who were ready to resign in protest not to do so and instead to stay and fight on.
The meeting heard about the outstanding history of the branch over the past 13 years, winning new recruits and activists by fighting and winning campaigns for members.
Members praised the work done by Onay and the branch under his leadership. One shop steward stood up on behalf of his members in grounds maintenance and said: "From everybody on our section we want to say thank you because without you and what you have done for us we would not be here today."
This was an extremely emotional meeting, with many members moved to tears. It ended with a standing ovation by every single person.
See also Trotskyism on Trial and Fighting Leadership needed - nominate Roger Bannister.
THE 2010 annual meeting (AGM) of the Greenwich Unison branch has unanimously backed Onay Kasab, the witch-hunted secretary of the branch who currently faces a three-year ban from holding office in the union.
Members angrily denounced the ban at the packed meeting - yet Unison claims that it is taking the action against the four Socialist Party members in the name of ordinary members!
As though to rub salt in the wound, that same morning the union office received a leaflet from current general secretary Dave Prentis asking that the branch nominate him in the general secretary election. Prentis says in his statement that the union is a "democratic and member led union that takes its lead from our members". So why has he ignored the deluge of protest letters sent to him demanding an end to the witch-hunt?
The AGM heard from Onay about the huge fight ahead against the expected attack on public services and how we need strong, campaigning, militant unions to defend jobs and services. He told the meeting that despite the ban, the priority was the union branch. He asked members who were ready to resign in protest not to do so and instead to stay and fight on.
The meeting heard about the outstanding history of the branch over the past 13 years, winning new recruits and activists by fighting and winning campaigns for members.
Members praised the work done by Onay and the branch under his leadership. One shop steward stood up on behalf of his members in grounds maintenance and said: "From everybody on our section we want to say thank you because without you and what you have done for us we would not be here today."
This was an extremely emotional meeting, with many members moved to tears. It ended with a standing ovation by every single person.
See also Trotskyism on Trial and Fighting Leadership needed - nominate Roger Bannister.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Greenwich Socialist Party says NO to public sector cuts
DEFEND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES-NO CUTS
MAKE COUNCILLORS PAY AT THE BALLOT BOX
DEFEND OUR UNION BRANCH
STOP THE WITCH-HUNT
Up and down the country, local councils, be they Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrats are cutting our services and axing our jobs. Even Councillors from the Green Party have a record of voting for cuts. Where the BNP have been elected, their councillors have been ineffective and they have voted in favour of cuts.
This is in stark contrast to Socialist Party councillors who have not just consistently voted against cuts, but have led community campaigns outside of the council chamber. In Lewisham, Socialist Party councillors Ian Page and Chris Flood played a leading part in the successful campaign to stop the sell-off of council housing in New Cross and have supported the campaign to stop the closure of Deptford Job Centre.
Now, more than ever, we need councillors willing to fight for our jobs and our service. A recent confidential report from the Greenwich Council Labour group proposes the following:
Over £30 million of cuts to jobs and services
A “review”- in other words cuts- of terms and conditions for council staff; in particular evening and weekend working costs.
Reviewing sickness absence levels
Increased “productivity”. This means working harder but for no more pay!
Review all council services with a view to transfer to the trading company; a first step to privatisation
Review “Social care”, to consider “enterprise models” and “shared services”. This is about outsourcing social services.
Review of low priority activity. This means cutting non-statutory services.
The cutback will not be limited to council staff. The public will also suffer. For instance the report states:
“Review of eligibility criteria beyond care services” “ Restricted access to services” and incredibly “examine options to reduce demand and volume”.
We can’t accept this! Council workers will have to fight to save our jobs, wages, pensions and conditions. But public service workers should not have to fight alone. We all rely on essential public services. We have to be prepared to fight alongside those who also use our services.
In Greenwich, the UNISON branch has been at the forefront of fighting cuts to services and attacks on council staff. Once again, the UNISON branch is preparing to take a leading role. But the union leadership at a national level are tied to new Labour. They see the re-election of a Labour government as a priority.
That is why UNISON branch secretary and Socialist Party member Onay Kasab is still being attacked by the union leadership. He still faces suspension from office as a result of a vicious and brutal witch-hunt conducted by fulltime officials who want to make the union safe for new Labour. No trade unionist wants to see the election of a vicious anti-working class Tory government. But to simply argue that Labour would be a lesser evil will not do.
Whether there are 100 or 500 job losses as a result of cuts in Greenwich is not relevant. Our principle is that an injury to one is an injury to all. It is this unity that has allowed us to win our past campaigns. That is why every working class community threatened with cuts and privatisation should stand trade union, socialist or community activist candidates against the big parties at next May’s council elections
MAKE THE CUTTERS PAY AT THE BALLOT BOX
SAVE OUR SERVICES
If you would like to help in our work to build a campaign for a new workers party, to break the trade unions from New Labour then join us
Socialist Party demands:
-No public sector cuts
- No compulsory redundancies and cuts in wages, terms and conditions for public sector staff
- For a programme of public works to fight the scourges of unemployment and poverty, with local councils mounting a campaign to demand money from the national government if necessary
-For a new mass workers party to expose and replace the rotten politics of the mainstream parties.
MAKE COUNCILLORS PAY AT THE BALLOT BOX
DEFEND OUR UNION BRANCH
STOP THE WITCH-HUNT
Up and down the country, local councils, be they Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrats are cutting our services and axing our jobs. Even Councillors from the Green Party have a record of voting for cuts. Where the BNP have been elected, their councillors have been ineffective and they have voted in favour of cuts.
This is in stark contrast to Socialist Party councillors who have not just consistently voted against cuts, but have led community campaigns outside of the council chamber. In Lewisham, Socialist Party councillors Ian Page and Chris Flood played a leading part in the successful campaign to stop the sell-off of council housing in New Cross and have supported the campaign to stop the closure of Deptford Job Centre.
Now, more than ever, we need councillors willing to fight for our jobs and our service. A recent confidential report from the Greenwich Council Labour group proposes the following:
Over £30 million of cuts to jobs and services
A “review”- in other words cuts- of terms and conditions for council staff; in particular evening and weekend working costs.
Reviewing sickness absence levels
Increased “productivity”. This means working harder but for no more pay!
Review all council services with a view to transfer to the trading company; a first step to privatisation
Review “Social care”, to consider “enterprise models” and “shared services”. This is about outsourcing social services.
Review of low priority activity. This means cutting non-statutory services.
The cutback will not be limited to council staff. The public will also suffer. For instance the report states:
“Review of eligibility criteria beyond care services” “ Restricted access to services” and incredibly “examine options to reduce demand and volume”.
We can’t accept this! Council workers will have to fight to save our jobs, wages, pensions and conditions. But public service workers should not have to fight alone. We all rely on essential public services. We have to be prepared to fight alongside those who also use our services.
In Greenwich, the UNISON branch has been at the forefront of fighting cuts to services and attacks on council staff. Once again, the UNISON branch is preparing to take a leading role. But the union leadership at a national level are tied to new Labour. They see the re-election of a Labour government as a priority.
That is why UNISON branch secretary and Socialist Party member Onay Kasab is still being attacked by the union leadership. He still faces suspension from office as a result of a vicious and brutal witch-hunt conducted by fulltime officials who want to make the union safe for new Labour. No trade unionist wants to see the election of a vicious anti-working class Tory government. But to simply argue that Labour would be a lesser evil will not do.
Whether there are 100 or 500 job losses as a result of cuts in Greenwich is not relevant. Our principle is that an injury to one is an injury to all. It is this unity that has allowed us to win our past campaigns. That is why every working class community threatened with cuts and privatisation should stand trade union, socialist or community activist candidates against the big parties at next May’s council elections
MAKE THE CUTTERS PAY AT THE BALLOT BOX
SAVE OUR SERVICES
If you would like to help in our work to build a campaign for a new workers party, to break the trade unions from New Labour then join us
Socialist Party demands:
-No public sector cuts
- No compulsory redundancies and cuts in wages, terms and conditions for public sector staff
- For a programme of public works to fight the scourges of unemployment and poverty, with local councils mounting a campaign to demand money from the national government if necessary
-For a new mass workers party to expose and replace the rotten politics of the mainstream parties.
Unison black members reject witch-hunt
"Unless Mr Kasab and his colleagues are punished, black Unison members can have no confidence in the union fighting racism." These were the words of the Unison national officer who acted as the prosecution in the union's case against four Socialist Party members.
A Unison member
Yet, in the first week of the attacks, in June 2007, a black Unison member told the Socialist Party fringe meeting at the union's national conference: "They are not going to use the colour of my skin for their own purposes."
From the outset, the union leadership have been prepared to misuse the issue of racism. The long campaign to defend the four has shown that this is in fact a political witch-hunt.
Black members in Greenwich Unison have been to the forefront in expressing outrage at the charges against their Unison branch secretary, Onay Kasab. Many have said that if the ban on him holding union office is upheld, they will have no hesitation in resigning their union membership.
A recent meeting of Unison's national black members' committee was attended by general secretary Dave Prentis. There are over 260 BNP members in the union and he was questioned about the lack of action on this. Members also called for the union to reconsider its action against the four, as the sanctions were too harsh.
Then last week Unison held its annual national black members' conference. Onay Kasab was the delegate from Greenwich. He spoke in the debate on fighting the BNP about his role in leading the strike action at Hither Green back in 1988 against the fascist Skeggs and the role of Greenwich Unison in the campaign to close the BNP headquarters in Welling. Both campaigns were successful.
He told the conference that as a result he had received racist hate mail and had been targeted by racists. Finally he spoke of the scandal of the lack of action against the BNP members in Unison. He compared this with the treatment of the four and demanded an end to the witch-hunt.
He received several ovations during the three minutes he was allowed to speak. This obviously frustrated the general secretary who was sitting behind the podium. Several delegates reported that his face looked like thunder!
Delegate after delegate approached Kas after his speech, to congratulate him and to condemn the witch-hunt.
A Unison member
Yet, in the first week of the attacks, in June 2007, a black Unison member told the Socialist Party fringe meeting at the union's national conference: "They are not going to use the colour of my skin for their own purposes."
From the outset, the union leadership have been prepared to misuse the issue of racism. The long campaign to defend the four has shown that this is in fact a political witch-hunt.
Black members in Greenwich Unison have been to the forefront in expressing outrage at the charges against their Unison branch secretary, Onay Kasab. Many have said that if the ban on him holding union office is upheld, they will have no hesitation in resigning their union membership.
A recent meeting of Unison's national black members' committee was attended by general secretary Dave Prentis. There are over 260 BNP members in the union and he was questioned about the lack of action on this. Members also called for the union to reconsider its action against the four, as the sanctions were too harsh.
Then last week Unison held its annual national black members' conference. Onay Kasab was the delegate from Greenwich. He spoke in the debate on fighting the BNP about his role in leading the strike action at Hither Green back in 1988 against the fascist Skeggs and the role of Greenwich Unison in the campaign to close the BNP headquarters in Welling. Both campaigns were successful.
He told the conference that as a result he had received racist hate mail and had been targeted by racists. Finally he spoke of the scandal of the lack of action against the BNP members in Unison. He compared this with the treatment of the four and demanded an end to the witch-hunt.
He received several ovations during the three minutes he was allowed to speak. This obviously frustrated the general secretary who was sitting behind the podium. Several delegates reported that his face looked like thunder!
Delegate after delegate approached Kas after his speech, to congratulate him and to condemn the witch-hunt.
Angry reaction to Unison witch-hunt
From 20th Jan edition of The Socialist
Four Socialist Party members who are members of Unison, Brian Debus, Glenn Kelly, Suzanne Muna and Onay Kasab, are being witch-hunted by their own union. At the moment the outcome of their appeals to Unison against suspensions from holding union office is awaited, as is the decision of an Employment Tribunal.
Hundreds of angry Unison members and other trade unionists have complained to Unison's leadership during the course of the witch-hunt. These are excerpts from a few of their emails and letters.
"I write to express my disappointment at the union's decision to ban someone like Brian who has worked tirelessly to support staff in Hackney for so many years.
I am not a particularly political person but I would defend anyone's right to vote and campaign freely and without prejudice or sanction...
Having been a Unison member for over 13 years I am now questioning whether this is a group I would want to belong to."
"I have never heard a complaint about [Brian] from other people. I could not believe that he could be accused of committing a racist offence even by his own trade union. I myself cannot accept any such accusations against him as a member of this union."
Hackney Unison members
"I have followed the disciplinary case against Onay Kasab aka Kas with some interest particularly as I have been a member of Greenwich Unison for about 16 years.
I was shocked to find out that he has been suspended from holding office for three years.
Although I don't share his politics 100% I have found Kas to be a very hard-working trade unionist and a very able branch secretary. I have seen quotes from the likes of Rory Bremner and Mark Thomas that Unison is making itself look foolish, stupid and authoritarian and I agree with them."
"I am very worried that the integrity of our union is under threat. My opinion is that this is a flagrant misuse of my union subscription for political cleansing.
I would ask you what measures are being taken to ensure a democratic union? I would ask you what measures are being taken to ensure a legal, even-handed and respectful union?"
Greenwich Unison members
"I would have thought that the union should respect the democratic wishes of the ordinary members who have repeatedly re-elected them [the witch-hunted four].
The disciplinary committee are out of touch with the members and are themselves bringing the union into disrepute in the eyes of the members whose actual jobs, wages and conditions are under the worst attack we have faced in decades.
The only people who will take solace from this are the out of touch NEC members and the bosses. It will do nothing to inspire the members I represent that the union leadership is serious about fighting the real enemy - the bosses and government who are trying to cut the jobs, wages and conditions."
Ronnie Stevenson, Glasgow Unison, personal capacity
"I hear today that the four have been found guilty, this beggars belief! This decision could have a profoundly negative effect on members, many of whom in my own branch are totally disillusioned with the union nationally and would view this as no more than a bloody minded and spiteful attack on four honest and genuine union representatives who have a proud record of standing up for their members' interests no matter what their ethnic background.
Maybe that was their true crime, because by their actions in fighting for the most vulnerable in society, for fighting against low wages and privatisation, and by their past record of fighting and putting real alternatives to the scourge of the BNP and of exposing the fraud that is New Labour, they have shamed a spineless and impotent union bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that despite recent sound bites is in shameful collusion with a morally bankrupt New Labour government, and offers no alternative to the issues that affect the day to day existence of ordinary - dare I say - working class people, ...but then life is just more comfortable that way isn't it?"
A Unison health member
"I have been appalled over the last few years at the lengths to which certain people in Unison have gone to try to discredit Glenn Kelly and his three colleagues.
I am a Unison member in Bromley and have always thought the charges spurious, brought to fulfil some hidden agenda.
Now the tribunal has revealed that certain people do have a hidden agenda - I ask you to immediately organise an independent enquiry into the allegations...
Our union must be shown to be democratic and fair and above board in all its dealings otherwise people will leave in droves over this and good people will be unwilling to stand for office. How can we stand against other organisations/people where unfairness and dishonesty rule when we are just as bad?"
A Bromley Unison member
"We cannot afford to lose the input of these activists with a Conservative government on the horizon. At present we are fighting job cuts, offshoring and low pay rises in our industry. These are our priorities, not spending Unison resources investigating so-called rule breaches like this one."
Unison South West Gas branch committee
"The racism slur does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny and would be almost comical, were it not so damaging to the good names of these activists and the sentence returned so severe.
As for the charge of attacking the integrity of the Standing Orders Committee, I cannot see that this serves any purpose; least of all Unison or the Committee themselves.
What has Unison got to fear from open debate? Dragging names through mud on trumped up charges and the crushing of dissenting voices are not the sign of a strong organisation at ease with itself."
"I am urging you to remove the charges from my branch secretary and the other three activists. On a personal level, I would not want to continue to belong to a union which treats its members in this mean spirited and manifestly unjust way."
Unison, Tenant Services Authority members
Four Socialist Party members who are members of Unison, Brian Debus, Glenn Kelly, Suzanne Muna and Onay Kasab, are being witch-hunted by their own union. At the moment the outcome of their appeals to Unison against suspensions from holding union office is awaited, as is the decision of an Employment Tribunal.
Hundreds of angry Unison members and other trade unionists have complained to Unison's leadership during the course of the witch-hunt. These are excerpts from a few of their emails and letters.
"I write to express my disappointment at the union's decision to ban someone like Brian who has worked tirelessly to support staff in Hackney for so many years.
I am not a particularly political person but I would defend anyone's right to vote and campaign freely and without prejudice or sanction...
Having been a Unison member for over 13 years I am now questioning whether this is a group I would want to belong to."
"I have never heard a complaint about [Brian] from other people. I could not believe that he could be accused of committing a racist offence even by his own trade union. I myself cannot accept any such accusations against him as a member of this union."
Hackney Unison members
"I have followed the disciplinary case against Onay Kasab aka Kas with some interest particularly as I have been a member of Greenwich Unison for about 16 years.
I was shocked to find out that he has been suspended from holding office for three years.
Although I don't share his politics 100% I have found Kas to be a very hard-working trade unionist and a very able branch secretary. I have seen quotes from the likes of Rory Bremner and Mark Thomas that Unison is making itself look foolish, stupid and authoritarian and I agree with them."
"I am very worried that the integrity of our union is under threat. My opinion is that this is a flagrant misuse of my union subscription for political cleansing.
I would ask you what measures are being taken to ensure a democratic union? I would ask you what measures are being taken to ensure a legal, even-handed and respectful union?"
Greenwich Unison members
"I would have thought that the union should respect the democratic wishes of the ordinary members who have repeatedly re-elected them [the witch-hunted four].
The disciplinary committee are out of touch with the members and are themselves bringing the union into disrepute in the eyes of the members whose actual jobs, wages and conditions are under the worst attack we have faced in decades.
The only people who will take solace from this are the out of touch NEC members and the bosses. It will do nothing to inspire the members I represent that the union leadership is serious about fighting the real enemy - the bosses and government who are trying to cut the jobs, wages and conditions."
Ronnie Stevenson, Glasgow Unison, personal capacity
"I hear today that the four have been found guilty, this beggars belief! This decision could have a profoundly negative effect on members, many of whom in my own branch are totally disillusioned with the union nationally and would view this as no more than a bloody minded and spiteful attack on four honest and genuine union representatives who have a proud record of standing up for their members' interests no matter what their ethnic background.
Maybe that was their true crime, because by their actions in fighting for the most vulnerable in society, for fighting against low wages and privatisation, and by their past record of fighting and putting real alternatives to the scourge of the BNP and of exposing the fraud that is New Labour, they have shamed a spineless and impotent union bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that despite recent sound bites is in shameful collusion with a morally bankrupt New Labour government, and offers no alternative to the issues that affect the day to day existence of ordinary - dare I say - working class people, ...but then life is just more comfortable that way isn't it?"
A Unison health member
"I have been appalled over the last few years at the lengths to which certain people in Unison have gone to try to discredit Glenn Kelly and his three colleagues.
I am a Unison member in Bromley and have always thought the charges spurious, brought to fulfil some hidden agenda.
Now the tribunal has revealed that certain people do have a hidden agenda - I ask you to immediately organise an independent enquiry into the allegations...
Our union must be shown to be democratic and fair and above board in all its dealings otherwise people will leave in droves over this and good people will be unwilling to stand for office. How can we stand against other organisations/people where unfairness and dishonesty rule when we are just as bad?"
A Bromley Unison member
"We cannot afford to lose the input of these activists with a Conservative government on the horizon. At present we are fighting job cuts, offshoring and low pay rises in our industry. These are our priorities, not spending Unison resources investigating so-called rule breaches like this one."
Unison South West Gas branch committee
"The racism slur does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny and would be almost comical, were it not so damaging to the good names of these activists and the sentence returned so severe.
As for the charge of attacking the integrity of the Standing Orders Committee, I cannot see that this serves any purpose; least of all Unison or the Committee themselves.
What has Unison got to fear from open debate? Dragging names through mud on trumped up charges and the crushing of dissenting voices are not the sign of a strong organisation at ease with itself."
"I am urging you to remove the charges from my branch secretary and the other three activists. On a personal level, I would not want to continue to belong to a union which treats its members in this mean spirited and manifestly unjust way."
Unison, Tenant Services Authority members
Education trusts are "academies lite"
From the 20th Jan edition of The Socialist
Education bosses in Greenwich have begun laying off workers and slashing and burning terms and conditions of some of their lowest paid workers. They are preparing the ground for a new education trust run by the University of Greenwich. The two schools selected to be part of the trust are Eltham Green school and Eglinton School in Plumstead.
Paul Callanan
Teaching assistants (TAs) from the two schools lobbied the council on 8 December. Michelle Nimmo, a TA at Eglinton school, explained how she was sacked while on maternity leave.
Michelle was called to a meeting with no one to represent her in a room full of strangers and given notice that she was being made redundant. The school's head teacher didn't even attend the meeting because she was on holiday in Indonesia!
Meanwhile at Eltham Green school 39 workers have been made redundant as part of a so-called "restructuring" package. TA Kirsty Gibson explained that this has been done so that bosses can "pick off the most vulnerable workers". As a result the school has lost experienced workers.
She also explained that this is an attack on staff pay, terms and conditions as the council have now opened up 39 new vacancies at the school. Former staff will be able to apply for these positions but those that get the jobs will do so on much lower terms than before.
The next night a meeting was held to discuss the fightback. The meeting was first addressed by Onay Kasab, Greenwich Unison branch secretary and Greenwich Socialist Party member who said: "the trust proposition is a very real threat that we mustn't lose sight of. The redundancies, cuts and the trust are all linked, in spite of the council's denials."
His call to stand candidates at the next council elections, that would really represent parents and teaching staff was well received.
Lewisham National Union of Teachers branch secretary and Lewisham SP member Martin Powell-Davies then told the meeting about a similar attack being carried out by Lewisham council, who are trying to impose a trust on parents and teaching staff.
He explained that councils' new found enthusiasm for trusts is because of the unpopularity of academies and that trusts are simply "academies lite".
He pointed out that one danger of academies is that "staff would no longer be working for the council but competing trusts who want to hammer down terms and conditions". Also so-called "difficult children" could be turfed out or denied places at schools as the trusts compete with each other.
This was backed by a TA from Eltham Green school who said that "difficult" students are already being expelled on flimsy reasons in preparation for the trust.
The meeting finished by agreeing to organise a demonstration in Eltham.
The Socialist Party demands:
No compulsory redundancies
No cuts to staff pay, terms and conditions
No to trusts
For education to be controlled by elected local authorities, parents and staff
Any new staff to be taken on with the same pay, terms and conditions as existing staff .
For a joint campaign of parents, pupils and staff to oppose attacks on education
Education bosses in Greenwich have begun laying off workers and slashing and burning terms and conditions of some of their lowest paid workers. They are preparing the ground for a new education trust run by the University of Greenwich. The two schools selected to be part of the trust are Eltham Green school and Eglinton School in Plumstead.
Paul Callanan
Teaching assistants (TAs) from the two schools lobbied the council on 8 December. Michelle Nimmo, a TA at Eglinton school, explained how she was sacked while on maternity leave.
Michelle was called to a meeting with no one to represent her in a room full of strangers and given notice that she was being made redundant. The school's head teacher didn't even attend the meeting because she was on holiday in Indonesia!
Meanwhile at Eltham Green school 39 workers have been made redundant as part of a so-called "restructuring" package. TA Kirsty Gibson explained that this has been done so that bosses can "pick off the most vulnerable workers". As a result the school has lost experienced workers.
She also explained that this is an attack on staff pay, terms and conditions as the council have now opened up 39 new vacancies at the school. Former staff will be able to apply for these positions but those that get the jobs will do so on much lower terms than before.
The next night a meeting was held to discuss the fightback. The meeting was first addressed by Onay Kasab, Greenwich Unison branch secretary and Greenwich Socialist Party member who said: "the trust proposition is a very real threat that we mustn't lose sight of. The redundancies, cuts and the trust are all linked, in spite of the council's denials."
His call to stand candidates at the next council elections, that would really represent parents and teaching staff was well received.
Lewisham National Union of Teachers branch secretary and Lewisham SP member Martin Powell-Davies then told the meeting about a similar attack being carried out by Lewisham council, who are trying to impose a trust on parents and teaching staff.
He explained that councils' new found enthusiasm for trusts is because of the unpopularity of academies and that trusts are simply "academies lite".
He pointed out that one danger of academies is that "staff would no longer be working for the council but competing trusts who want to hammer down terms and conditions". Also so-called "difficult children" could be turfed out or denied places at schools as the trusts compete with each other.
This was backed by a TA from Eltham Green school who said that "difficult" students are already being expelled on flimsy reasons in preparation for the trust.
The meeting finished by agreeing to organise a demonstration in Eltham.
The Socialist Party demands:
No compulsory redundancies
No cuts to staff pay, terms and conditions
No to trusts
For education to be controlled by elected local authorities, parents and staff
Any new staff to be taken on with the same pay, terms and conditions as existing staff .
For a joint campaign of parents, pupils and staff to oppose attacks on education
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)