UNISON Edinburgh
UNISON Edinburgh WWW
spacerUNISON City of Edinburgh Branch
Home News About us Join Contact and Help UNISON Scotland UNISON UK

 

Pay 2000 Review

UNISON City of Edinburgh
Local Government & Related Sectors Branch

Response to UNISON Scottish Local Government Committee
REVIEW OF THE 2000 PAY CAMPAIGN.

  1. Introduction
    There has been considerable debate in the branch about the organisation and tactics of the Pay Campaign. This culminated in an AGM motion which was then taken on to the Scottish Local Government Service Group Conference.

    While there has been wide consultation in the branch via the AGM, meetings of strikers and through stewards committees, only two written responses were received to the circulated report. These disagreed with each other on the success of the campaign but agreed on one issue that has been consistently raised in the branch - the problems caused by changing from the planned 1, 2, 3 days of action.

  2. What was achieved.
    There is considerable satisfaction among lower paid members at the outcome of the dispute. Middle earning members are far less supportive, especially in relation to the perceived pay cut in 2002.

    The solidarity of members taking action was excellent and, especially at the beginning exceeded expectations. Because of the level of confusion towards the end of the dispute and the long gaps in action and information, we lost some of the positives of the settlement. The debate about the implications of three year funding was not explicit enough and therefore the shift from 'no two year deals, to a four year deal was not understood and was seen as a major about turn by many members.

    What is clear is that we would not have achieved what we did without the action. Yet it has been hard to get members to see this for the victory it was.
  3. Change in Tactics
    We do not agree that the change from 1, 2, 3 days to an ad hoc series of one day strikes, linked with bringing forward the selective action, was the right way forward. The problems created include:
  4. Lack of Consultation
    The members' view was that this is not what they voted for. Because of the way it was raised at the Forum, members felt they had not been consulted. This created ill feeling amongst members but also within the Forum.
  5. Lack of clear planning
    The change in tactics was either pragmatic (we could not deliver the 1, 2, 3?), or naïve (the selective action would win the day). It was not a pro-active decision based on careful analysis or wide consultation.
  6. Addressing weaknesses/ Realistic planning?
    If the decision was based on being unable to deliver, then there should have been more honesty about where the dispute was going. In Edinburgh there was a very wide view that little would move until the three day block kicked in. The one day strikes were disruptive and well supported but recovery from them was quick. Especially in Education, there was a wide view that the real disruption would come with the three day stoppage.

    The move away from the original plan was interpreted by management as weakness and UNISON being unable to deliver and they settled in for a long dispute.

    If there were concerns about the ability to deliver, then these should have been addressed at an early stage. There was little point maintaining the strikes for the sake of maintaining the strikes.
  7. Selective Action
    Selective action itself was never going to win the dispute and the decision to bring it forward and curtail the all-out days was very hard to sell as an 'escalation'. It was a 'lowest common denominator' tactic rather than one realistically designed to win the dispute.

    The selection of the groups was fragmented and inconsistent and should have had more central direction and co-ordination. Because of the different tactics in different areas (and little or nothing happening in some areas), we lost the sense of a national dispute.
  8. Media initiative
    Because of the lack of co-ordination of the selective action, we lost the media initiative. In Edinburgh we were running with the campaign 'line' that we were not targeting the public but were targeting Council infrastructure. Yet alongside this, action directly affecting the public was being sanctioned in nearby areas. The media rightly accused us of a 'forked tongue' approach.

    It seemed that some selective groups were chosen on the basis of whether they would go on strike as opposed to how they fitted in to the overall strategy.
  9. The Forum
    The dispute has raised fundamental flaws in the role of the Forum The structure needs to be reviewed and the basic question of whether it should exist at all needs to be raised. The positives and negatives emerging from branch discussions are as follows:-

    Positives:
    - Every branch is able to be part of a direct consultation with the staff side.
    - It can be used as a relatively quick way of consultation.
    - It allows branches to scrutinise negotiators in a direct way.

    Negatives
    - The Forum regularly exceeds its role and takes on the role of a decision-making forum. This is not supportable when there is no real pro-rata representation from branches.

    - The Forum attempts to take strategic, tactical and organisational decisions in a large group using formal meetings procedures. This is, and has been, a recipe for chaos.

    - Branches come mandated as individual branches following individual branch agendas. As such it is very difficult to arrive at a position for the union as a whole.

    - Many members of the staff side were guilty of voting one way on the staff side then voting against themselves at the Forum. This has been argued as being accountable to individual branches. However, staff side members are not elected to represent their own individual branch - if that were the case we would need a member of every branch on the side. They are elected to represent all the branches and act in the interests of the union as a whole.

    It exposes a flaw in those elected to positions of leadership being unable to take the responsibility for that leadership. The result was some reps facing both ways at once which totally inhibited strategic planning of the dispute.

    We believe this raises fundamental issues about the very existence of the Forum. However, if the Forum is to continue it must allow for 'back-filling' of places - ie if a branch has a rep on the side, it should be able to replace that position on their delegation. This would resolve the problem of branches losing a vote if they have a staff side member. However it would not stop the absurdity of staff side members still being able to vote one way on the side and another in the Forum.
  10. The Role of the election
    It would be foolish to deny a suspicion amongst some members that the union leadership was nervous about damaging the Labour Party's election prospects. We do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that lay or full time officers represented anything but the UNISON position.

    However, these suspicions were not helped by conflicting advice from full time officers at some stages of the dispute, bringing a sense of obstructiveness. As well as having no conflict of interest, we also need to be seen to have no conflict.

    The suspicions were not helped by media coverage, especially when it was obvious that some briefings were coming from within UNISON. Some of this appears to have come from naivety, some perhaps by design. What is clear is that the employers did not get a clear message at the beginning that the whole force of the union was behind this dispute. From what some employers appeared to be saying, they were also getting some luke warm messages from lay and full time officers during the dispute. This was particularly obvious in the optimism the employers had for the second rejected offer.

John Stevenson
Branch Secretary

top

 


Full Index | About the Branch | Affiliated Political Fund | Branch Meetings | Branch Officers | Conditions Index | Hot News | How the branch works | How to join us | Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender | LINKS | Members Benefits | Partnership Document | Policy Finder | Response to Edinburgh 2000 | Retired Members News | Rules | UNISON's national website | UNISONNews branch magazine: Latest issue | Update your membership details |Voluntary Sector | [What the Branch Does: | Representing Members | Campaigning | Health & Safety | Education | Equality | International ] | Womens Organisation |

Website Design
Website designed and maintained by John Stevenson (Communications Officer)
© UNISON City of Edinburgh Local Government & Related Sectors Branch 1998-2008.
All original graphics copyright but may be used if credited in source code.

top

 

See also...

Submissions & Responses

See also Serving Scotland's Capital for ongoing campaign issues