I have spent the last few days on an intensive training course on branch organising, part of our Birmingham organising campaign. I can't remember the last time I was able to set time aside for such training. I am always too busy fighting fires to stop and look at why there are so many fires breaking out.
This has been a very practical and fundamental look at how we can organise more effectively. I can hear members silently commenting about 'effective union organisation' just as Gandhi did to a reporter who asked what he thought about Western Civilisation - "It would be a good idea" !
The truth is, in my view, we have come well past the limits of what we can achieve through the super-hero 'servicing' model whereby many, if not most, members expect to have immediate, expert, individual representation when something goes wrong and for 'the union' to solve all their problems for them. A bit like 'Ghostbusters' - who you gonna call ?
Don't get me wrong, we still need to give good representation when needed. But now it is not just grievances and disciplinaries for a small percentage of members we have to service. We also have dozens of restructuring and job cutting exercises, thousands of members facing the possibility of redundancy, thousands losing pay under the new contract, as well as many worried they might be asked to change work location or working hours, many schools becoming Academies, transfers of services to private companies or social enterprises, to name but a few.
Just about everyone understandably has a major concern or issue. We all need our union.
The answer is, I believe, a fundamental change to the way we approach the union. We need to work towards building up strong active workplaces, with a high union membership and where management can see the members are actively involved and prepared to stand up for themselves and each other. Our greatest strength is our being a group, a collective, and a force to be reckoned with - if we work together. A union is not the Fifth Cavalry riding to the rescue, but a means by which we organise ourselves together to defend ourselves. That's the way to carry real weight with management. They may be strong, but we are many !
That's what we have been looking at on the course.
One small but powerful development in this direction of travel is to get more direct contact with our many hundreds of workplaces across the city.
How about becoming one of the '1 in 10' ? Would you be prepared to become a workplace contact ? Who would for example on occasions talk to 5 or 10 of their colleagues about a union issue - say about "what do you think about the pensions offer" or "what do you think people would be prepared to do to make the PDR system operate more fairly". And then feedback the views and information to the branch. We wouldn't ask you to do too much, talking to 5 or 10 people would be a great help.
It wouldn't necessarily take much time and effort but it would greatly strengthen our links to our membership. It would be a small but significant step towards becoming a union which really listens and relates to our membership as a whole.
Think about it and contact us if you would be prepared to do a little to help build up our local union organisation where you work. Be one of the '1 in 10' !
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
What powers should a new elected Birmingham Mayor have ?
Today sees the close of an eight week consultation period on the powers an elected mayor should have if the referendums scheduled for May 2012 agree to this. This consultation, begun on November 1st, has been rather over shadowed by the Pensions strike but the outcome of this could have a significant impact on the political control of our council.
Birmingham is one of 12 English cities (Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield) that the Con-Dem Government would like to see directly elect a mayor with executive powers to replace the current system of councillors choosing a Leader and Cabinet members.
The plan is to hold a referendum in the 12 cities in May 2012 on whether to have a directly elected mayor.
This consultation is over the additional powers the directly mayor should have beyond control of the city council, such as over transport in the city.
UNISON's view on directly elected mayors is that we don't support the idea. We find it difficult to comment on the powers they should have, because we don't believe they should have any.
Speaking personally, I really value the system we have of councillors elected by ward who then choose amongst themselves who should be responsible for the different areas of council services, and a leader for the council.
I know my local councillors and so do my neighbours. If we have a problem or issue, we know we can get to our councillors really easily. There are advice surgeries, regular ward and constituency meetings open to the public and we can even contact them directly if we need to. That's not to say I'm happy with the decisions they make in the council, particularly when it comes to cutting our services and changing our contracts. But I respect the democratic process through which they were elected and the role of the councillors within it. And I believe they are continually responsive to their electors, to at least some degree. And I get to vote for them three years out of four.
Compare that with a single person who is elected by a million inhabitants who then can choose who will be their Cabinet members. How close will they be to their individual electors ? Maybe every four or five years when they are seeking re-election. It's the concept of the big individual political hero, rather than power being in the hands of a hundred or so councillors elected by local wards
I can understand why London would find it useful to have a city wide mayor. Their local authority services are delivered by dozens of local borough councils so it makes sense to have a cooordinating and strategic executive body and a directly elected mayor.
But Birmingham already has that coordinating and strategic body. It's called the council.
The main argument for a directly elected mayor seems to be that it might attract someone with exceptional charisma and strategic abilities to be a champion for the city. Well we've not done so badly with the old system of locally elected councillors. Birmingham has been transformed over the past few decades. It is a city I enjoy living in and am proud to call home. And it is a product of local democracy. But for how long ?
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Birmingham is one of 12 English cities (Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield) that the Con-Dem Government would like to see directly elect a mayor with executive powers to replace the current system of councillors choosing a Leader and Cabinet members.
The plan is to hold a referendum in the 12 cities in May 2012 on whether to have a directly elected mayor.
This consultation is over the additional powers the directly mayor should have beyond control of the city council, such as over transport in the city.
UNISON's view on directly elected mayors is that we don't support the idea. We find it difficult to comment on the powers they should have, because we don't believe they should have any.
Speaking personally, I really value the system we have of councillors elected by ward who then choose amongst themselves who should be responsible for the different areas of council services, and a leader for the council.
I know my local councillors and so do my neighbours. If we have a problem or issue, we know we can get to our councillors really easily. There are advice surgeries, regular ward and constituency meetings open to the public and we can even contact them directly if we need to. That's not to say I'm happy with the decisions they make in the council, particularly when it comes to cutting our services and changing our contracts. But I respect the democratic process through which they were elected and the role of the councillors within it. And I believe they are continually responsive to their electors, to at least some degree. And I get to vote for them three years out of four.
Compare that with a single person who is elected by a million inhabitants who then can choose who will be their Cabinet members. How close will they be to their individual electors ? Maybe every four or five years when they are seeking re-election. It's the concept of the big individual political hero, rather than power being in the hands of a hundred or so councillors elected by local wards
I can understand why London would find it useful to have a city wide mayor. Their local authority services are delivered by dozens of local borough councils so it makes sense to have a cooordinating and strategic executive body and a directly elected mayor.
But Birmingham already has that coordinating and strategic body. It's called the council.
The main argument for a directly elected mayor seems to be that it might attract someone with exceptional charisma and strategic abilities to be a champion for the city. Well we've not done so badly with the old system of locally elected councillors. Birmingham has been transformed over the past few decades. It is a city I enjoy living in and am proud to call home. And it is a product of local democracy. But for how long ?
Graeme Horn
Joint Branch Secretary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)