There is a Better Way - Organise (1)

Guest blog by Graeme Ewart, Unite Deputy Convenor on their fight for recognition at GE Caledonian, Prestwick

When I joined a union I did it as many do, to belong, to be part of something bigger.

Perhaps I was spurred on by the takeover of my company by a huge multinational like GE. My colleagues and myself knew our unionised sister site in Wales had better terms and conditions and we had become disillusioned with our Works Council that had proven to be  nothing more than a tick box exercise, a powerless non-negotiating body and at best only a tool for communication .

Our workplace was a typical non-union workplace; low pensionable pay topped up with large shift allowance and loads of overtime. It took five years from being bought by GE for enough people to think the time was right to make the move to recognition. To be honest looking back we weren’t ready as a workforce and our Union at the time the AEEU should’ve realised that, the divisive issues on the shop floor were played upon by the Burke Group, the union busters hired by GE.

Turning the clock forward 9 years we had changed as a workforce, our average age was 54, priorities focused more on important issues; pensionable pay for one. Our union had changed as well not just in name, Unite now had a focus on organising workforces in a way that harnessed their energy and channelled it in a positive, constructive manner.

We started focusing on the things we had in common as opposed to the things that kept us apart. So when our campaign went live we were ready, positive, resolute and focused on a goal. We were fighting to be treated fairly and receive the normal pensionable salary within our industry, a fight more important than ever as GE were making draconian changes to our pension scheme.

Union busting tactics were used again, workers were threatened with a world of if’s, but’s and maybe’s, doom and gloom and threats of lack of investment if recognition was secured!

We countered with a private Facebook group backed up with a text network. Our ever growing membership was mapped accurately. We confronted every half-truth, we named and shamed managers publicly for scaremongering, we raised grievances locally and across the pond to headquarters, petitions and newsletters were circulated.

The rule was, the louder the better,

We posted company’s profits, always positive and always good news; we knew we could achieve more as empowered workers in a recognised site; not just for our benefit but for our customers and GE too. Organisers call it innoculation telling the workforce what the employers will do do before they do it and countering.

Our maps were so accurate that when we went to CAC ballot for recognition we knew we would win; our activist network and workforce were battle hardened, immune to anything thrown at them.

As a recognised site we have gained a lot of respect, management know we’re a determined empowered workforce who will stand up for what we believe is right.

In conclusion this wasn’t a fluke and can be repeated anywhere, there’s no such thing as a non-member,  only potential members;  get organised, listen, allay their fears, communicate with them by any means possible and attempt to address their issues.

This is how we grow our union membership; Unions are the future not the past! People don’t expect a magic wand to be waved and all will be well, but they want to  seek realistic negotiated solutions.

For more information on the 2012 recognition campaign  watch the video Vote Yes, Vote Unite  .

Stick to the motto that we still use. STRONGER TOGETHER!!!

 

Graeme Ewart

Unite Deputy Convenor

 

 

St Andrews Day anti-racism march - message of support from Johann Lamont MSP, Leader of the Scottish Labour Party

Yesterday, we featured the First Minister speaking in support of STUC's St Andrew's Day March and Rally Against Racism. Today Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont writes about Martin Luther King and the ongoing fight for equality.



Earlier this year, we celebrated 50 years since Martin Luther King gave his famous 'I have a dream' speech.

When he led more than a quarter of a million to Washington in 1963, the civil rights movement faced a seemingly impossible task in overcoming an establishment which believed that not every man or woman was equal.

But Dr King's eloquent message of hope and equality overcame the conservative forces that tolerated segregation and, as a consequence, society slowly began to see past the politics of division and grievance that fuelled racism.

Has Dr King's dream become a reality, where every man and woman is given equal standing? Certainly not in his lifetime, as he was sadly taken from us just a few short years after his stirring speech.

Yet we have made tremendous progress in breaking down barriers to the fair and just society most of us aspire to. When once an elderly Black woman would have to give up her seat on the bus for her white 'superior’, we know have a generation of young people who don't recognise colour as a defining feature of people's place in life.

And what greater legacy could we claim for those tireless and brave civil rights campaigners than President Barack Obama, revered all round the world for his charm, intelligence and thoughtful leadership.

That dream must have seemed impossible in 1963 but it is a reality today - one important landmark on the long road to full equality.

We know that our ambition for a fair and just society, where opportunity is afforded to all, no matter their race, orientation or background, still eludes us today.
Sadly, people still face discrimination because of their colour, race or ethnicity.

Too many men and women are not fully accepted by all of society because they are gay.
Women still face challenges breaking into the spheres of influence traditionally dominated by men.
Disabled people still encounter too many barriers preventing them accessing the quality of life they should be entitled to.

And many children's life chances are decided by the age of three, held back by their background, denying them the opportunity to achieve their potential.

But we can take inspiration from the success of those amazing men and women, black and white, who marched on Washington that day, demanding what they knew was right.
 
They remind us that social change is hard-fought and we can only achieve our ambitions by winning the political argument for change. We cannot allow complacency to set in or settle for a false prospectus based on myth and assertion.

We in the labour and trade union movement have always campaigned to bring about change for good. We know that there are no quick fixes or magic wand that can bring about change.
But we know that through our collective endeavour, we can achieve real change, winning hearts and mind one at a time.

The fair, equal society free of prejudice we aspire to won't happen tomorrow but we have to believe we can achieve it one day.

We can be confident that the generation that follows us will be more tolerant, more progressive and more open to equality if we instil in our children these values we hold dear.

Those people who followed Martin Luther King to Washington 50 years ago believed they could challenge racial prejudice - now we have a Black President leading the free world.

I don't know what the symbol of our success in our struggle against inequality will be in 50 years’ time, but I look forward to campaigning with you today to help us get there one day.

First Minister, Alex Salmond MSP on why it is important to support STUC's St Andrew's Day anti-racism march

Over the next fortnight STUC will be featuring articles and contributions from politicians, campaign groups and celebrities on why it is important to support STUC's St Andrew's Day anti-racism march on 30th November and the weekend of anti racism activities surrounding it. For more details go to the STUC site or like the weekend of events on facebook.

"I have great pleasure in supporting this year's STUC St Andrew's Day anti-racism march.

This event is an important annual reminder of the need to be vigilant about the threat racism poses to our communities and I commend the STUC for the consistent leadership they have shown on this vital issue for many years.

The theme of this year's event, "The World is Watching", sets out clearly that the eyes of the world will be very much on Scotland in 2014 with the XX Commonwealth Games, Ryder Cup and second year of Homecoming taking place. It is our opportunity to once again show that Scotland is a welcoming and diverse country which does not tolerate racial or religious prejudice, and we are a nation where people of all faiths - and none - live in peace.

I would like to send my best wishes to everyone who is taking part in the march and rally. Events like this remind us there is a wide consensus committed to building a society in which all of our people are achieving, regardless of their background, where the barriers to participation are removed and where all of our people are treated fairly and have the opportunity to fulfil their potential."

The case for a Living Wage Unit in Scotland, for Scotland

The case for a Living Wage Unit in Scotland, for Scotland

Last Thursday the Scottish Living Wage campaign and Scottish trade unions held a brief lobby outside of the Scottish Parliament.  Its purpose was to ask MSPs to sign up to a Living Wage pledge.  The full detail of the pledge is here.

In period of less than an hour, we had secured 35 signatures and a number of emails and tweets from MSPs who were otherwise detained pledged their support.

Who were they? Almost every Labour MSP, Patrick Harvie MSP from the Green Party, Independent MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart and SNP backbenchers John Mason MSP and John Wilson MSP.

Two of the four points within the pledge relate to the Procurement Reform Bill.  The background to this is that the Scottish Living Wage Campaign, STUC, SCVO and many others, remain of the view that there are no clear legal impediments to the Scottish Government legislating to ensure that the Living Wage is included in contract performance clauses as part of contracts procured by Scottish councils, the NHS and others in areas such as social care.  The Scottish Government takes the opposite view and seeks to evidence this by a letter it has received from the EU.

This was a position repeated by Local Government and Planning Minister Derek MacKay to a major roundtable conference of social care providers hosted by STUC and Unison Scotland last Friday.  He also indicated, and this gave some grounds for optimism amongst the assembled audience, that Scottish Government continued to explore all potential options short of including a clause in the Bill, to maximise the Living Wage impact of Scotland’s £11 billion annual procurement budget.

So, to return to the pledge.  Neither of the procurement points we asked MSPs to support brought them into conflict with the Scottish Government’s position.  Indeed it can be argued that they are as close to what Derek MacKay was arguing as they could be (given that neither he, nor we, has communicated about such matters in advance).

So, on the presumption that this is the case, the reason that no more than two SNP MSPs felt able to sign the pledge must relate to one of the other two points.  Either that a summit between COSLA and the Scottish Government on paying the Living Wage is a bad idea or that they  continue to oppose the creation of a Scottish Living Wage Unit.  It is difficult to imagine that the first is a problem.  Surely if one doesn’t think that the Living Wage can be guaranteed through the Procurement Reform Bill, it would be a good idea to get together with Scottish local authorities to work out what can be done?  Even if I’m wrong on that, let it be said now, we will drop that request if it is causing an impediment to Scottish MSPs signing the pledge.

Which leaves us with fourth part of the pledge ‘the creation of a Scottish Living Wage Unit’.

A bit of background is necessary here.

The Living Wage in London is calculated by a specific unit, created by the Greater London Authority under Ken Livingstone in 2005.  The unit researches low pay issues and sets the London Living Wage annually.  It also promotes the Living Wage in London to employers.  The Living Wage for the rest of the UK is set by the Living Wage Foundation, an arm of Citizens UK.  The Scottish Living Wage Campaign has a representative on this body.  The Living Wage Foundation does excellent work, has some important business sponsors and can rely on the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's work on the Minimum Income Standard.

The UK rate is set annually as the same figure across the UK.  At present its level is reasonably fairly applicable to Scotland given the general convergence of Scottish and UK employment and cost of living trends.

So what’s the problem with the current set-up?

I’d suggest that there are four reasons why the Scottish Government should want to create a Living Wage Unit here in Scotland.

1)    Annually, the Scottish Government sets its pay policy as part of the Scottish Budget process.  This includes the monies which must be set aside to meet the Government’s (welcome) commitment to paying the Living Wage and relates to employees of the Scottish Government, NDPBs and NHS Scotland.  It also impacts on local authority budgets given that all councils are now Living Wage employers.  It is not a satisfactory situation that the Cabinet Secretary of Finance sets his pay policy with no advanced knowledge of what the UK Living Wage will be and with no guarantee that Scottish data and political circumstances play a part in that calculation.

2)    The London Living Wage is different from the UK’s because of additional costs related to living in the capital.  Should the Scottish Government be content that there is no way in which it can take a similar view about whether costs might be different in Scotland or across Scotland?

3)    Because the Living Wage is voluntary it relies on promotion.  Companies are (preferably) persuaded by the positive case for the Living Wage, or else embarrassed into action by the positive actions of others.  The persuasive impact of a Scottish Living Wage Unit, backed by the Scottish Government would make a difference.

4)    The extent to which the Living Wage can be effectively promoted depends, to a degree, to the political discourse that surrounds it.  For example, a strong political view that ‘women’s’ work (such as in the care sector) is undervalued to the detriment of fairness and sustainable economic growth could have an impact.  Or a particular piece of research on, say, rural poverty in Scotland, might provide a particular focus for tackling low wages in the farming, food processing or hospitality sectors.  If it is accepted that the political discourse is different in Scotland, why not maximise its effect by creating a Living Wage Unit to reflect different priorities?

As a proportion of the overall monies spent by the Scottish Government on economic research and promoting income equality, the cost of the creation of a Scottish Living Wage Unit would be financially insignificant and would probably, to a very large extent, simply involve the refocusing of the activities of civil servants currently employed on related activities.  As a low cost means of income maximisation, it’s a no-brainer.

It is to be hoped that this isn’t a question of party politics.  The proposal for a Living Wage Unit was initially brought forward by the Scottish Living Wage Campaign but was introduced to Parliamentary discourse by then Labour MSP, John Park and now features in the Living Wage Bill which was picked up initially by Kezia Dugdale MSP and now Mary Fee MSP.

Having been pressed by various MSPs to support a Living Wage Unit, the Scottish Government is on record a number of times as not being persuaded on the case for a Living Wage Unit.  But I can’t track down any substantive reason given for why this is the case.  The latest question in Parliament was put down by Neil Bibby MSP to Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney MSP, and he simply ignored that part of the question.

Neither the Scottish Living Wage Campaign, nor the STUC, nor the many other voluntary, equality and anti-poverty organisations which support a Living Wage Unit have the remotest interest in political point scoring over this issue. 

We just want a Living Wage in Scotland, for Scotland.

Dave Moxham
11th November 2013

Grangemouth and the demise of the industrial correspondent

The last few weeks, and particularly the last few days have given trade unionists a fresh reason to mourn the demise of the industrial correspondent.  The causes and reasons for this are not the subject of this article.  But suffice to say there was a time when a major media outlet covering a dispute such as Grangemouth would have employed a political correspondent, a business correspondent and an industrial correspondent, each with a level of expertise and understanding which could be related to the reportage of a particular event.  That is no longer the case and balanced coverage of the trade union role at Grangemouth has been the main casualty.

There has for a long time now been a problem with language.  The last few days has included a liberal peppering of pejoratives. The union has ‘capitulated’ and ‘surrendered.’ Ian MacWhirter (whose particular poor article in this week’s Sunday Herald will be referenced a number of times in this piece) says “The result will have been noted by every industrial employer in Britain, as the highest-paid and best-organised (in a trade union sense) industrial workers in Scotland have been humbled”.

As research proves there is a very strong tendency in the media when talking of unions to focus on (perceived) negative and hostile emotional responses “anger, fury, threat, threaten, battle and attack”. Unions are led by “bosses, barons and chiefs”. In this context it may seem natural to employ similar pejoratives when unions suffer a reversal, but it’s not good journalism.  By way of example contrast the use of language from BBC Business Editor Douglas Fraser who also uses the humble word in the context of the union but who was content to describe the Jim Ratcliff closure ultimatum of the Grangemouth plant as nothing more than “assertive”.

The specific nature of Ineos has been recognised by most of the journalists in the field - venture capital funded, lightly regulated, “too big to fail” in the context of the UK fuel market and the wider supply chain and with an aggressive management style. But there has been a near universal failure by journalists when judging the role of Unite within this dispute to apply any of this context in a way which might reach a more nuanced understanding of why things happened as they did or what the implications might be. This is probably due to a lack of familiarity with industrial relations and the dynamic of the workplace.

The quote from MacWhirter cited earlier is a case in point.

 

Industrial employers will certainly have noted what happened at Grangemouth. But they will also know, as most observers should, that the Ineos situation was in no way typical and or one from which generalised industrial relations conclusions should be drawn.  Put simply, the game changed when, in the middle of the dispute, Ineos threatened to ‘cut and run’ threatening thousands of jobs and a whole community. The bargaining position of the respective sides was fundamentally altered.  This is the context in which Unite’s subsequent actions must be judged.

For some like MacWhirter the position on this is straight forward. Unite ‘miscalculated.’ It could and should have known exactly what Ratcliff was prepared or planning to do.

 “Unite failed to realise that Ratcliffe was serious about closing the Grangemouth petrochemical plant. If any of Unite’s officials had lifted a phone to call one of Scotland’s legion of oil analysts, or any business journalist, they would have been told that Grangemouth is on a distinctly shoogly peg; that its out-dated plant and history of poor industrial relations made it a likely candidate for the chop in a global business hit by falling prices and competition from low-cost countries in Asia.”

The presumption that the union was 'fiddling while Rome burned' is unsubstantiated nonsense.  That the plant faced challenges, required investment and existed within a changing global market was shared and mutually understood information by management, union and many others.  Far from being uninterested in this, the union conveners and shop stewards had, and continue to have, a highly sophisticated knowledge of their plant. They know the parts of the operation which are profitable and potentially more profitable, they know when and how this can happen. They know in great detail the implications of closure of the petrochemical plant for the operation of the refinery and surrounding industry. They know about the world market, about the balance between diesel and petrol and the implications of the new US shale gas supplies.

So when Douglas Fraser says (in the article linked earlier) “For unions, there's a need to see the context in which their sector works, and to see ahead to the direction their employers are heading. Change is a constant, so it's doubtful that digging in to defend the past is much of a long-term strategy.” he demonstrates a straightforward lack of knowledge of the industrial relations landscape he is describing, both in relation of the Ineos conveners specifically and the role of the union nationally.  (A couple of links to Unite’s strategy on refining and petro-chemicals are attached at the bottom of this article). 

So the conveners were acutely aware of the issues, but they were also highly sceptical about the negative gloss the company was putting on its current profit/losses. And in this they were far from alone. On the plant itself they were in full agreement with  Alex Salmond, John Swinney and many others - a bright future was possible.  They were also entirely willing to negotiate and to make concessions to secure the future of Grangemouth and the jobs.

What the conveners didn’t know, because no-one (including MacWhirter’s legion of oil experts and business correspondents) knew, or even now knows, is exactly how valid was the Ineos claim on monthly losses or the overall profitability of the company.  John Swinney on BBC Newsnight last week  insisted that the Scottish Government  had undergone due diligence in deciding to offer £9 million in funding to Ineos, but he didn’t for one moment suggest that he or any of his officials had been able to gather a complete picture of Ineos’s global finances.

 So a more nuanced picture emerges.  Over the weekend before last, when Unite was recommending that its members reject the company’s ultimatum it was still entirely possible a) that Jim Ratcliffe would, either of his own volition, or through the influence of key players such as Petro China, lenders and the respective governments, pull back from the brink b) that real progress would be made with the alternative buyer being courted by the First Minister c) that the Scottish Government would undertake to take the company into some form of public ownership if options a) and b) failed.

If Unite had believed other than that Grangemouth had a strong future (irrespective of the detail of any final deal on terms and conditions) it is entirely clear to me that, as subsequent events demonstrate,  its position prior to that weekend meeting would have been different. 

But by Tuesday morning there were developments and/or a lack of developments which made the situation even more acute than it had been prior to the weekend a) Ratcliffe had decided to go ahead with closure b) whilst discussions between the Scottish Government and an alternative buyer continued, the potential remained unclear and it was undoubtedly still the First Minster’s preference that a deal with Ineos be reached c) it seemed highly likely for constitutional or financial reasons (or probably both) that the Scottish Government could not take Grangemouth into public ownership and meanwhile the UK Government was palpably continuing to adopt a minimalist approach to intervention. (The latter point about whether the Scottish Government actually had the powers to take the plant into public hands was almost universally ignored in the media).

According to MacWhirter, the only way the situation was ultimately resolved, was when “the workers effectively sacked their own union leaders”.  But that’s not true.  The situation was resolved when the Unite conveners made a new offer to the management.  MacWhirter needs to imagine that some sort of overthrow of power was effected or it wouldn’t sit with his view that Unite were in this dispute for reasons of “obstinacy and self-interest”.  But to repeat, what he says happen, didn’t happen.

Commentators are entitled to argue that somewhere within the range of unknown intentions and fast moving events described above, there was the potential for a better calculation on the part of the union.  But to imply, as MacWhirter and a whole host of other commentators have, that the union’s options were somehow easy to calculate and unhindered by difficulty doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The real story of Grangemouth is still ‘what Ineos tells us about power in Britain today’ - as blogged here by STUC General Secretary, Grahame Smith on Sunday 27^th October. We are still awaiting a nuanced analysis from a Scottish journalist of how trade unionism and the events in Grangemouth really fit into that picture.

 

 

http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/OilRefineryBrochure11-4935.pdf

http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we-help/list-of-sectors/chemicals-pharmaceuticals-process-and-textiles/chemicalspharmaceuticalsprocessandtextilesunitestrategy/

The result will have been noted by every industrial employer in Britain, as the highest-paid and best-organised (in a trade union sense) industrial workers in Scotland have been humbled.

 

What Ineos tells us about power in Britain today.

This week’s events reveal all we need to know about where power lies in Britain today, and it is frightening.

Jim Ratcliffe’s decision not to proceed with the closure of the Ineos Petro-chemical plant following the workforces’ acceptance of his ‘recovery plan’ has been variously described as another illustration of the lack of union power and influence.

The real story of Grangemouth is that it was Government that was powerless to prevent one individual deciding the fate of a strategically vital national industrial asset, its1,300 strong workforce, and thousands more workers besides, and the fate of a local community.

Despite all the cajoling of Alex Salmond, Ed Davy and Alistair Carmichael, it took the Ineos workforce and their union Unite to take the decisive step that made it impossible for Ratcliff to walk away as he was determined to do just two days previously. It is beyond belief that one of the supposedly most powerful nations on the globe was incapable of stopping the closure of the Grangemouth plant.

The closure of a community centre in Grangemouth would have required a more extensive due process, and greater transparency and accountability than was involved in the decisions to close a vital industrial facility.

Far from being a crisis for the trade union movement, this is a crisis for democracy, political and industrial democracy.

When a union, on behalf of a workforce, and an employer enter into a collective agreement it is a form of industrial democracy or, although in no sense equal, of workplace power sharing. With it comes a responsibility on both sides to negotiate to resolve differences and, on union members, a legal requirement to demonstrate through a secret ballot that there is support for any industrial action proposed if agreement cannot be reached.

It has been lost amongst the many other issues involved at Ineos that the ballot of Unite members had a turnout of 86%, exceptional by any standards, with 82% in support of strike action and 92% in support of action short of strike. Implicit in this legal requirement on the union to ballot is the expectation that the employer will recognise its outcome and the strength of feeling it demonstrates and respond accordingly.

Despite voluntarily entering into a collective agreement with Unite, Ineos simply refused to negotiate at every turn, issued a take it or leave it ultimatum and, its response to the outrage of its workforce at the treatment of one of their colleagues and the rejection of its ultimatum was to shut the plant.

It has been suggested that the level of investment proposed by Ineos at Grangemouth justified its actions. The company has presented this as if Jim Ratcliffe intends to write a personal cheque for the £300m involved.

The truth is that, as is the way with private equity companies, the money will come from the markets not from earned income. As Ineos is so highly levered it needs to use earned income to pay the interest on its debt. New borrowing for Grangemouth demands the minimum of lender risk. That risk has now been transferred in large part to the Scottish and UK taxpayers and, given the sacrifice they made to keep the plant open, the workforce.

It is important to look to the future and to the success that we all know the Grangemouth facility will be. But we cannot ignore the fundamental issues thrown up in the last week about where power should lie and how the will of the people in a democracy should be exercised.

The Scottish Constitutional debate, the debate about where power should lie and why, will be of little real relevance if Government, wherever it sits, does not have the power to prevent private equity capital threatening the stability of a country’s economy, or a workforce is unable to influence the actions of an employer.

Grahame Smith STUC General Secretary

Campaigning against the Bedroom Tax - next steps?

It is hard to think of a recent political issue which has encountered more widespread and diverse opposition than the Bedroom Tax.  Scotland’s two largest political parties oppose it (though they continue to disagree on who opposes it most and best).  Trade unions and local campaign groups oppose it – through their own actions and as part of larger coalitions such as the Scottish Anti-Bedroom Tax Federation, No2Bedroom Tax and of course, the STUC. 

In a letter just published, a large range of community sector, faith and equality groups have made a powerful statement against the measure; outlining how, through exemptions, it can be effectively nullified and arguing for action in Scotland to mitigate its effects.

In another really important development ‘Bin the Bedroom Tax’ including Glasgow and West of Scotland Housing Federation and the Scottish Tenants Organisations has targeted the LibDem conference this Saturday, Sunday and Monday in Glasgow.  Shelter Scotland’s Bedroom Tax monster has been prowling in Holyrood over the past few days too!

Such an array of campaigns and organisations is testimony to the strength of feeling, but it can also be confusing.  United by opposition to the Bedroom Tax and agreeing that it should be repealed, there is nevertheless a difference in tactics and priorities – some of which is driven by the different functions of the organisations involved. 

It can also be confusing to consider that, short of immediate repeal, there are so many things which can be done to reduce the number of people affected, reduce the levels of debt and to ensure that evictions do not take place. 

Here is the STUC’s position.

·        Let a thousand campaigning flowers bloom.  Work together where that is possible but don’t undermine the efforts of other if you disagree over tactics.

·        Continue a clear focus on campaigning for repeal.  Get to the SECC on Saturday, Sunday and Monday – or all three days – and make sure that when the Liberals vote on Monday it is against the Bedroom Tax.

·        Identify a range of additional exemptions which would make the reality of the Bedroom Tax disappear for the vast majority of tenants.

·        Celebrate the successful campaign  to get the Scottish Government to commit £20million for DHP but make the case for DHP to be transparent, accessible and available equally across Scotland and for exemptions to be equally applied.

·        Campaign for additional Scottish Government funds to be made available to completely mitigate the Bedroom Tax and make illegal evictions for Bedroom Tax arrears.

·        Continue to highlight the actions of housing providers where they take unreasonable steps to pressurise those in arrears.

·        Press for an emergency conference of all housing providers to be organised by the Scottish Government to ensure all possible opportunities to mitigate are implemented and to pursue a common anti-evictions position.

 
Next stop LibDem conference on Saturday!

 

 

A very long way to go

The new set of labour market statistics for Scotland published today were pretty unspectacular: in the three months to June unemployment fell by 1,000 and employment increased by 13,000. No new information was published to shed any light on the nature of the new jobs created (pay, full/part time, temporary/permanent, involuntary part-time/permanent). Nevertheless, the political response was predictably Panglossian.

Here's a quick attempt to put the figures into some kind of context. Whilst my preference would be to consider the absolute state of the Scottish labour market I've included the UK as a comparator. After all it seems the performance of Scotland's labour market is only taken seriously when compared to the UK as a whole.

Here's the employment rate:

Putting aside for a moment all issues of nature of work created, it's certainly true that Scotland's employment rate is currently increasing at a faster rate than the UK's but over the past year performance has been remarkably similar: the employment rate for Scotland has increased by 0.5% and the UK's by 0.4%.

The salient point is that the current employment rate is still 4.7% below its pre-recession peak and only 1.7% above the trough of summer 2010.

What about the unemployment rate?

Much is now being made of Scotland having a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the UK but a couple of things should be borne in mind:

• Scotland entered the recession with a significantly lower ILO unemployment rate than the UK as a whole. By July 2008, Scotland's rate had dropped to 4% a full 1.2% below that of the UK;
• Since the rates converged in June 2010, Scotland's rate has fluctuated around what has been a remarkably (and depressingly) steady UK figure.

Again, the salient point is that Scotland's unemployment rate remains 3.2% higher than the low of summer 2008 and only 1.7% below the peak of summer 2010.

So Scotland's labour market might be improving but there is a very long way to go before pre-recession rates of employment and unemployment are attained. Comparisons with the UK as a whole are inevitable but can be somewhat misleading and, I would suggest, are a bit risky for the Scottish Government. Scotland is currently doing better on both measures but it's not long since the opposite was true. Given the volatility in the Scottish rate relative to the UK it would not be at all surprising if performance didn't flip again in the near future.

Surely ATOS Should Pay for Appeals

The Coaltion Government have mounted frequent attacks on workers rights including increasing the qualification period for unfair dismissal claims to two years and decreeing that unfair dismissal cases would be added to the list of cases to be heard by judges sitting alone. This was a significant move from having such cases dealt with by an industrial jury composed of a legally qualified Judge and lay members from both employee and employer backgrounds, an arrangement that had the support of employers trades and trade unions alike.

These were was ideolgical attacks on the rights of working class people, disguised as justified in order to reduce the costs to the taxpayer of running employment tribunals, estimated to be £84 million pounds per year.

The bad news for those wishing to take unfair dismissal claims, those relating to any aspect of discrimination or equal pay is that these cases will attract the higher level of fees, £250 to lodge a claim and a further £950 if it goes to a hearing.Fees for equal pay claims, due to misdrafting of the orders, will be charged at the lower fee rate until this error can be rectified.

The Government frequently misrepresents statistics in order to justify these fees, choosing to conflate the number of individual claims with often complex multiple claims to paint a picture of an Employment Tribunals Service that has an increasing workload and is over burdensome on the taxpayer. The reality is that individual claims have been decreasing in the last few years.

The Government rationale for this attack on justice; why should the taxpayer have to meet the costs of delivering a service they will never have to access.

However, perhaps the fastest growing tribunal and the one at risk of becoming an increasing burden on the taxpayer is Social Security appeals. Appeals against decisions taken by ATOS judging people fit for as part of the Government's £112 million per year contract are now costing the taxpayer £66million, roughly 80% of the cost of running employment tribunals.

But ATOS, whose failures blight the lives of the most vulnerable in our society, some of whom do not live long enough to appeal their decision, suffer no financial penalty for consistently getting this wrong .

When representatives of the STUC Disabled Workers Committee met with Chris Grayling MP, former Minister for Employment in January 2012 and put the case for financial sanctions we were informed the concerns and anger of the STUC and other campaiging groups should not be directed at ATOS as it was the Government's assessment and ATOS were purely delivering the service.

Now we have Mark Hobban MP, successor to Chris Grayling, admitting there are flaws in the system and now being all too willing to point the finger at ATOS. Irrespective of who is at fault the cost of running this draconian assessment is £180 million pounds when appeal costs are taken into account, over twice that for employment tribunals.

ATOS have had a monopoly on this contract to deliver a flawed assessment, an assessment has not and never will be able to assess an individual's capacity to work However, any inroads into ending this monopoly, as promised by Mark Hobban will only be to the benefit of another private sector, probably multi-national, occupational health provider.

Any confidence in the Work Capability Assessment is gone, assuuming there had been any in the first place. There appears to be no political will to charge the cost of failure against ATOS decisions back to them. We also have the prospect of Personal Independence Payment appeals just round the corner. In a question on this issue to Esther McVey, Minister for Disabled People in the Commons on 17th July she replied that the Government are expecting an appeal rate of 12.5% for new claims and 40% for reassessed cases. However she added these forecasts are necessarily pessimistic so they can ensure Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service have sufficient capacity!!

So the Government  intentionally underestimates the amount of anticipated appeals to ensure we have adequate resources to hear them in the Courts and Tribunal Service.  This is just nonsense and will only result in disabled people having to wait longer to appeal PIP decisions while ATOS continues to make increasing profits at the taxpayers expense with no penalty for delivering a substandard service.

Just how duplicitous can the Government get, they demand fees from individuals wishing to make claims against employers for breaches of employment rights. However when ATOS get it wrong and vulnerable individuals have to fight to retain their benefits, sometimes facing  a greater fight for their lives at the same time, no costs are awarded against ATOS; costs that if awarded would help to meet the rising tribunals costs for those fighting decisions to cut benefits and reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer.

Storifying the new LM and GDP statistics

What can be done about the Bedroom tax? – The role of Discretionary Housing Payments

The STUC is clear that the Bedroom Tax is an unfair, immoral and frankly absurd policy that will do nothing to improve the housing crisis that exists in this country but will heap misery on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, many of whom were already bearing the brunt of the Government’s austerity policies.

STUC is supporting an array of anti-bedroom tax campaigns across Scotland and is clear that there are a number of ‘asks’ we can make of our politicians at all levels to improve the situation including: ‘no evictions’ policies from councils; reclassification of rooms so the bedroom tax is not incurred; and of course a repeal of the ghastly policy by the Westminster Government.

While undoubtedly all the above approaches are important and will form part of the STUC’s future campaigning work in this area, there was one issue that we believe needs more attention, particularly in the run up to our Bedroom Tax Conference on Saturday 29^th June in Edinburgh. That is: Discretionary Housing Payments.

 It’s the STUC’s view that Discretionary Housing Payments are too often overlooked in the debate about the Bedroom Tax and are an important tool at the disposal of both Councils and the Scottish Government to mitigate it.

Importantly they also stop families falling into debt. Even on the most optimistic assessment people with just one additional room would be £750 worse off or in debt by 2014; £1500 by 2015 and £2250 by 2016. Frightening isn’t it....This is why the STUC believes that keeping families out of debt (and therefore using Discretionary Housing Payments more effectively) needs to play a key role in our anti-bedroom tax campaign.

This blog aims to tell you all you need to know about Discretionary Housing Payments but the STUC is also calling on all those concerned about the bedroom tax to find out if your own Council is topping up its Discretionary Housing Payment fund.

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are regulated by the DWP with funding provided by the UK Treasury.  STUC’s understanding of DHPs is as follows:

• They are made available on application to individuals in receipt of Housing Support for people who find themselves in difficulties for a range of reasons
• The application is made to the local authority
• Can be used for those in difficulty as a consequence of the change to occupancy rules (Bedroom Tax), Benefits cap etc.
• Each local authority receives funding from the UK Government and may, if it wishes, supplement that amount by up to 150%.  i.e. If a council received £1 million in DHP from the Government it would be able to legally spend £2.5 million on DHP overall
• STUC has not undertaken a full analysis but believes that councils tend not to supplement the basic figure and in some recent years have even underspent their budgets
• Councils are given a fair degree of discretion in how they administer the system and for whom.
• Although the DHP is by application, the UK government explicitly states that individuals can be contacted and encouraged to apply.  They can also apply by phone rather than filling out a form.
• The UK government increased Discretionary Housing Payments substantially last year to partially deal with the fall-out from their disastrous welfare policy.
• The current UK figures for DHP are (approx.) £160 million in 2013-2014, and £130 million in 2014-2015.
• Scotland received an increase in DHP for 2013-2014 (but Scottish Government believes it should have been higher as a proportion of overall total).  DHP in Scotland now stands at £10 million.  This means that the overall capacity for DHP which can be legally spent in Scotland is £25 million.  An increase of around £22 million since last year.  Most of this could be used to mitigate the bedroom tax.
• As the providers of 80% of local government funding it is open to the Scottish Government to provide this money.

BUTWhere does the money come from? 

STUC recognises that budgets are under strain.  Scottish Government has received serial cuts and these have been passed on to local government. The Council Tax freeze further pressurises local budgets. 

HOWEVER
Are we not agreed that the Bedroom Tax presents a particular moral attack which should be opposed? STUC believes that the money should be found and that it should found prior to the Scottish Government’s budget for 2014-2015 being debated in the autumn of this year.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Contact your Local Council and make sure that they are a) making tenants aware of Discretionary Housing Payments and b) providing additional resources to fund their Discretionary Housing Payments from within their council budget. 

Austerity Uncovered - STUC Highlands and Islands Conference 2013

This year, the STUC's annual Highlands and Islands Conference included an Austerity Uncovered panel during which a number of trade unionists articulated the impact of spending and benefit cuts, job losses and falling real wages on themselves, their families, workplaces and communities.

The slides which introduced the session highlighted the relative impact on the area's labour market and the extent of asuterity's failure on wages, growth and the public finances.