Unsated thirst for a just Scotland

After two years, during which the independence referendum has been the all consuming context for political and economic decision making in Scotland, the people have spoken.

While the result was a decisive vote for Scotland to remain in the UK, with 45% voting YES, support for an independent Scotland is now at an all time high.

In the weeks ahead the vote will be the subject of much analysis. From the information currently available it would appear that, in general terms, by large majorities the young voted YES* and the elderly voted NO; the poor voted YES and the rich NO (the three local authority areas which voted YES are the three with the lowest employment rates in Scotland); a substantial number of ‘traditional’ Labour supporters voted YES (as did a fair number of Labour activists); and while the votes of union members may well have been fairly evenly split, in all likelihood, taken together, a majority of current and potential union members voted YES. All of this has considerable implications for the trade union and labour movement across the UK. That said it is important to avoid reaching kneejerk conclusions based on such generalisations. 

The one thing that can be said with complete certainty is that the Referendum was a triumph for democracy.  The phenomenal turnout came on the back of months of discussion and debate in workplaces, in communities and within families. There was a thirst for information and engagement the like of which I have not previously witness.

I am immensely proud of the role the STUC played through our ‘A Just Scotland’ initiative in responding to that demand. 

The binary way in much of the media reported the Referendum meant that, by deciding not to promote a YES or NO position, the contribution made by the STUC and by affiliates representing the majority of union members, received marginal coverage, particularly in the latter part of the campaign. 

However, I know that the STUC’s contribution was hugely valued by unions and their members and was commended by a range of serious commentators for its balance and the rigour of its analysis. A quick look at our three ’A Just Scotland’ papers will easily reveal how accurate we were from the outset in highlighting the critical issues: the lack of credibility of the Scottish Government’s position on currency; the need for the unionist parties to address the demand for further Devolution and commit to retaining the Barnett formula; and the central importance of fairness and social justice to a large swathe of the electorate. All were defining issues. 

        

We also played our part in igniting the vast civic movement for real and progressive change that has grown in Scotland in the last two years.

More trade unionists and their families registered and turned out to vote than ever before. Many of those voting, some for the first time, and on both sides, voted for the constitutional settlement they felt would create a fairer and more just Scotland. Our politicians must pay heed. 

They must also pay heed to the clear demand for significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament and for more direct engagement with people and communities over the decisions which affect their lives, including within the workplace.

It is essential that the forthcoming discussions on further powers are not left to the politicians alone and deliver a substantial and meaningful package. The voice of civil society, so important in the creation of the Scottish Parliament, must be heard. The STUC and others must be at the table.

Unfortunately, the signs are ominous. The appointment of an unelected politician to lead the process is hardly a sign of inclusiveness or respect for democratic participation. While Scots are clearly impatient for change, the timetable which Gordon Brown invented and over which there now appears to be less consensus than we were led to believe, is hardly conducive to intensive civil and community involvement.  Furthermore, the package of proposals, from the little detail we know of it, and the conditions on Scottish representation at Westminster that some clearly wish to attach, are unlikely to satisfy.

The motion lodged in the House of Commons calls for consultation with the Scottish people on the proposals of all three UK parties.  Are we simply to be handed down minimalist proposals developed in a pre-referendum context which we can either take or leave? 

The STUC published it views on enhanced devolution prior to the Referendum. It would be odd if we did not recognise that 45% of the public voted for all of Westminster’s powers to transfer to the Scottish Parliament and reconsider our position.           

Constitutional change is about powers but it is also about purpose. For us and for a vast number of those who voted YES and NO, that purpose is a fairer more socially just Scotland. To date, the focus on further devolution has been on fiscal and welfare powers. However, the important levers are those over wages and the labour market. It would, therefore, be appropriate for us to look again at the case, for example, for the devolution of powers over employment and trade union rights, including union recognition and collective bargaining and other forms of workplace democracy, and over the minimum wage.  

The constitutional debate in Scotland can no longer be held in isolation from a debate about de-centralisation across and within the UK as a whole, or crucially within our own movement. There is much to be won for working people through union leadership of the debate on enhanced regional government in England and further devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland.   

The structure of the trade union movement including the arrangements of our trade union centres must reflect the post-referendum reality. We need an early and mature debate about the relationship between unions and the trade union centres in all jurisdictions of the UK, a debate which arguably should have taken place well before now. 

On the 15 October the STUC will be hosting a major conference to discuss our movement’s policy priorities in the light of Thursday’s result. On the Saturday following, 18 October, we invite all of those who want a fairer Scotland and a Scottish Parliament with the power to deliver it to join us in marching to a rally in George Square in Glasgow.

We must hold our politicians to the pledges they made and tell them loud and clear - the time for a Just Scotland is now.  

Grahame Smith

General Secretary STUC

*At the time of writing the available evidence used was the Ashcroft poll however a subsequent YouGov poll presented a different picture. Taken together the available evidence suggests that the 16-24 age group was fairly evenly split whereas the 24+ were more likely to vote 'yes'.  The 65+ age group appears in both polls to have strongly favoured 'no'.  This substantiates our view that trade union members were at least as likely to vote yes as no, but qualifies our view that future members were more likely to vote yes.
 

This article was first published in the Morning Star

The Vow & further powers - what next?

1.     With respect to new powers, there is a  trust problem for the three main devolution parties.  STUC itself was highly critical of the timing and presentation of the devolution proposals and the Vow. This mistrust of government is not confined to the 45% yes voters in the referendum.

2.      It is unclear whether ‘the Vow’ swung the independence vote or not.  But that is irrelevant, you don’t get to say ‘I made a promise which I thought I needed to make but as it turns out I didn’t need to make it after all.’

3.      The apparent attempt to include wider Westminster Reform (reducing Scottish MP voting rights) as part of a further powers package is a prima facie breach of trust and cannot be accepted.  Remember ‘the best of both worlds’ slogan?

4.      Even if it weren’t a breach of trust, the creation of a UK Westminster Parliament with MPs having different voting rights is not ‘English Devolution’.  That would be a) the creation of English Parliament exercising certain powers devolved from Westminster (Hence completing the devolution of the nations within the UK)  b) Devolution to the English regions of the English Parliament as a separate process and  not as an alternative to a).  David Cameron and his colleagues can aspire to be the Prime Minister of Britain or the First Minster of England – but not both.

5.      Whilst quick and decisive first steps are vital, it would be a mistake to judge the success of the ‘Vow’ by how quickly it is implemented, if that means that what is implemented is sub-optimal and not the subject of proper consultation.

6.      It is highly possible that any future constitutional settlement for the UK will be asymmetrical.  The very fact that one of the four nations involved in the union is six times bigger than the rest put together (with all the disproportionate direct and indirect influence this entails) may require a constitutional arrangement which appears less than perfect on paper but which is practically the fairest.

7.      The asymmetrical voting system at Westminster also reflects the fact that the union has always been/has come to be (delete as appropriate) a contract between nations and parliaments.  It reflects national interests as well as distributional equity.  This is also why Scotland’s per capita grant reflects its greater revenue contribution and not an assessment of its needs.

8.      Devo Max is not on the table.  It has only been broadly defined in the Scottish context. Even accepting that Devo Max is not clearly defined, the proposals of the Westminster parties comprise a mixture of options for possible further devolution of some, but not the majority of taxes and very few aspects of welfare.  This is not Devo Max.

9.      The aforementioned position is not the general understanding of Scottish voters who probably think there is more on the table than is actually being offered. The pro-devolution parties might argue that this is not their fault (they did after all publish their individual proposals).  But this would put them on very, very thin ice, given that they have had two and a half years to get this right and waited until just a few days before the referendum to make the Vow.

10.   Therefore, even if the promised timescale is adhered to, and even if the additional devolution powers are towards the maximum end of the spectrum of possibilities within the three parties’ proposals, a significant number of people - all of the 45% of yes voters and a chunk of the 55% of the no voters – are likely to be unhappy.

11.   It not necessarily easy or necessarily advisable to adopt a Devo Max model such as full fiscal autonomy. This is something which of course can be investigated, but brings a range of potential difficulties which will be explored in future blogs.

12.   Devolving a lot of tax, but not including some proportion of North Sea Oil revenues makes it difficult to increase powers without  reducing revenues.  This needs to be investigated further.

13.   It is also hard to devolve parts of the welfare system but not others.  There are a number of possible mechanisms which might be explored but it’s difficult to imagine significant changes without reform of the UK Welfare system, which has of course just been reformed through the creation of Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payments etc.

14.   Such was the number of supporters of both Yes and No whose key aim was to promote social justice that other powers including employment law, equalities legislation and to empower communities should be considered.

For most of the above reasons, the current proposed process for delivering powers is insufficient in terms of participation and scope. The UK Government/devolution parties need to fully engage the democratically elected Scottish Government (which is particularly representative of the 45% on this matter).  This should be augmented by a citizen–led process for discussing and refining the devolution plan, a process which includes not just the established civil society organisations, but - through citizens juries or similar mechanisms -  the voices of those (both yes and no) which turned the referendum process into a democratic phenomenon.

 Dave Moxham

 

 

One STUC Staffer's 1st Scottish Vote

On the eve of the Independence Referendum in Scotland, I slept badly.  When our baby stirred around 5 am, I wondered to myself, “How many people are up right now, worried about the vote?”  Thankfully, I was able to get the baby back to sleep and get some more shut eye myself.

I became a British Citizen in June this year, instead of taking holidays.  After passing a £50 “Life in the UK” test administered at a local college, I paid the £874 fee to acquire British Nationality.  After taking a pledge of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen at Glasgow City Chambers during a Citizenship Ceremony, at which my American parents, my husband and our son were present to support me, I registered to vote.

At the time, I didn’t realise that my first vote as a British Citizen might also be my last.

Around 7 am, I awoke and got ready for the day.  I woke up the baby who giggled and pretended to sneeze when he saw me (the ultimate compliment!) and upon locating our polling cards hanging on the message board in the hall, we ran out the door with my husband – as no amount of planning ever makes mornings run smoothly in our household.

Derelict lot near to the polling place.

Being in a hurry, we drove to the heart of the Calton to our polling station.  Finding a space to park near to the Calton Heritage Learning Centre was not an easy task, despite the amount of derelict buildings and vacant lots in the vicinity.  I noticed that there wasn’t a queue outside, as I had expected, but there was a steady stream of folks who were coming and going as I paused to ask my husband to take a snap of me before my first ever vote in Scotland.

I looked down at the ground as I walked up to the door, and noticed names and dates on the paving stones.  My husband remarked to me, “Those are the names of all the women who died in the factory fire,” referring to the Templeton Carpet Factory disaster which occurred across the street from the polling station in 1889.  I did a quick calculation in my head, and realised the fire disaster was 125 years ago.  I shook my head, reflecting on how the past meets the future, walked on and smiled at the YES and NO people standing outside the door without stopping to speak to anyone.

Commemorative stones to the 29 workers.

Inside the door of the Learning Centre, I stopped short.  There were two police officers standing in the hallway, and it threw me – mainly, because I had never seen a police officer in a polling station in my life.  Carrying our son, my husband passed by me and looked at a bunch of signs on white paper at the end of the hall.  It was then that I realised how grateful I was that he was there, because I was out of my depth.  He said a number to me, which I then found out was our ballot box number, and made a mental note to remember to check this in the future.  We handed our cards to the two gentlemen at our polling table, and they made some notes on a long list.  In watching them, I noticed that I was the 88th person to vote at that station so far today.  I was handed my ballot, kindly given directions to mark a cross in one box, fold the paper once, and drop it in the box next to them.

I walked over to the ballot booths and noticed that there was no curtain to pull, which was another change.  My husband stood next to me, holding our baby, in the next booth to mine, but I didn’t look at him.  I read the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” and my mind went blank.

Utter mental panic ensued in the space of 10 seconds. 

A ballot paper.

“What am I voting?”  “Am I marking YES or NO?”  “Don’t pull a ‘Donna Moss’ with your vote.” “What’s he voting?” “What am I supposed to remember?” “Get a grip, Jennifer.  Decide, and mark your vote.”

I re-read the question, marked my ballot, folded it in half, and dropped it in the box.

Do I feel different?  Yes, I do. 

In March 2015, I will have lived in Scotland for a decade, and for about half that time, I’ve been living in Glasgow.  I have always taken an active interest in local politics and government in every community I’ve ever lived in, as all of my local councillors, MSPs and MPs can attest (probably to their annoyance and my husband’s chagrin).

A Just Scotland

I’ve listened to the well-reasoned arguments both for and against independence, read the White Paper and the “A Just Scotland” series of analysis from the STUC, taken part in discussions on the “American Expats in Scotland” groups on Facebook, read (often amusing) enthusiastic comments and discussion from members of the STUC Youth Committee, bantered with long-time personal friends who happen to work in the civil service, been shut down by relatives who didn’t want to discuss the vote, prayed and reflected on my own, spoken at the play park with parents and grandparents from all walks of life and varied countries of birth, been annoyed in different cities at the propaganda stuck on every surface imaginable, watched the shouty debates on television, engaged on Twitter and most of all, conversed with my husband about our future and what world we want our son to grow up in, hereafter.

Today, I voted for the first time in Scotland.  I’ll probably sleep badly again tonight.  But tomorrow, I’ll be ready to engage with everything this vote is kicking off as a stepping stone to changing the status quo. 

A month from today, on the 18th October, I’ll march from Glasgow Green with YES voters and NO voters alike, uniting in solidarity for A Just Scotland. 

Why don’t you join us?


Jennifer Payne
STUC

STV debate and the STUC's position on the referendum

I regret having to write this short blog which I worry will look stupidly self-important. But I don’t think I can get away with not doing so given proximity to the referendum and the fact that the STUC’s non-aligned position has until now been scrupulously maintained.

During last night’s live STV referendum debate (which, being on a train home from Manchester at the time, I didn’t see) Douglas Alexander MP, speaking on behalf of Better Together mentioned my name...whilst inadvertently handing me a promotion! Here’s the full context:

The following question was asked from the floor:

"Given Labour's move to the right under the guidance of Douglas Alexander and Tony Blair, would you not think Scotland would be better placed, as a left wing Labour voter, under a Labour government voted in for by the people of Scotland, in an independent government?"

Douglas answered thus:

"Well, I would start with the historical mission of the Labour movement, which has been to look out for the interests of working people.  Why is it there is not a single large trade union supporting Yes?  It’s because the Labour movement understands that our unity is our strength and it will disadvantage, not help, working people across Scotland if we have a race to the bottom on wages, on terms and conditions; if we were to see a higher tax, higher regulation, higher terms and conditions Scotland alongside what would be suggested by a Tory Government in England, lower tax, lower wages, lower regulation, what's the logic of capitalism?  That those businesses would move south.  The way that we've made advances as the Labour movement over the last 60 years is by working together.  It took the votes of working men and women in Newcastle and Belfast and Cardiff to deliver a National Health Service and a welfare state.  I believe the way that we can do that is by having redistributive policies and after seven years of a Scottish Government here in Holyrood, they haven't implemented a single redistributive measure.  Don’t take my word for it; look at the words of Stephen Boyd, the Deputy General Secretary of the STUC.”"

Although I’m very confident this wasn’t the intention, Douglas mentioning my name in this context could leave the impression that I (and by extension the STUC) am hostile to the Scottish Government and/or anti Scottish independence. I accept that a precise reading of the words doesn’t necessarily lead to this conclusion but I’m already aware that some didn’t hear it in this way.

While being unable to recall writing anything which directly conforms to the above characterisation I certainly make no apologies of being critical –sometimes very critical - of the Scottish Government although it must be stressed that I always endeavour to ensure that any of my personal media contributions – mainstream or social – are wholly consistent with STUC policy. Areas where the STUC has been most vocal in its opposition to Scottish Government policy, and where I am the policy lead, include corporation tax, tax framework post-independence and small business bonus.

Scottish Ministers tend to react reasonably constructively to this criticism.  On some issues we agree to disagree but in other areas where the STUC is not uncritical – inequality, industrial policy – there is ongoing dialogue aimed at improving policy outcomes. At our last meeting with the First Minister we agreed a programme of work to develop policy in three areas: the foundational economy, manufacturing/reindustrialisation and inequality. Being official-led this work is behind the scenes, boring and long-term. It might lead to nothing or, who knows, we might develop world changing interventions.

The STUC was of course heavily involved in the recently published Working Together review of progressive workplace policies which stands in stark contrast to the approach to industrial relations at UK level and to which the initial response from Scottish Labour was rather underwhelming.

Regarding the referendum, the STUC’s approach – which I hope is widely recognised by now – is set out in the first two A Just Scotland reports. Our third and final (pre-referendum) report will be published next week. Post referendum – whatever the result – AJS will proceed with a conference and march/rally in October.

For the sake of clarity, no individual at the STUC will take a public Yes/No stance on the referendum and will not do so as it will undermine the position of the STUC. Yes, we might from time to time take a position on social media that is more challenging to the interests of one campaign (for me that’s sometimes meant being harder on Yes as we’ve yet to be convinced by Scottish Government/Yes arguments on the macroeconomic framework) but our overall position is set out in the AJS reports. This approach will not change before the 18 September.

Stephen Boyd

STUC

Solidarity with Gaza

The ITUC has declared today a day of action on Gaza and is calling on trade unionists and others around the world to do two things:

1. Send a message on Twitter to the UN and the Government to support peace. The message should read ‘We @ituc (@Your union name) support peace & democracy everywhere. @UN (@your national government or politician) act now for #gaza.’
If you are not on Twitter, you can post your message on Facebook.

2. Join the ITUC postcard campaign 'Peace Like Mine' and send a message to the UN Secretary General supporting peace.

To take part in the ITUC postcard campaign, you can go to the website www.bypost.com/peacelikemine and use a PC or mobile device to send a real postcard to the UN Secretary-General with your personal message and photo. This website allows you to send a photograph that depicts your view of peace. It might be a photo of your family or community or an activity that depicts everyday life. It also means you can add your personal message to the UN Secretary-General.

Here’s mine. Let’s see yours #peacelikemine

Everyone should be able to raise their kids in peace and stability #peacelikemine

Helen Martin
STUC

Why we are calling on MSPs to support five motions in the Scottish Parliament calling for peace, justice and the implementation of sanctions against Israel

Five MSPs have lodged important motions in the Scottish Parliament as a response to the crisis in Gaza. 

STUC has made a statement on that crisis here

The STUC has, for some years now taken the view that Israel should be subject to an international campaign of Boycott Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS). 

As we say in the introduction to our BDS campaign pack, it was a decision not taken lightly. Over a period of two years, STUC considered the issues; consulted with Palestinian trade unionists; listened to the views of the Israeli trade unions; and in 2009, organised a major fact finding mission to Israel/Palestine where the delegation spoke with dozens of peace and solidarity organisations.

In 2009 we said:

“60 years of United Nations resolutions have not resulted in any progress for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories in Gaza and the West Bank – including occupied east Jerusalem. Israel’s continuing policy of building settlements in Palestinian territory is a violation of international law. These settlements are rightly classed by the United Nations as areas of military occupation. Over twenty thousand Palestinian homes have been destroyed by Israel since 1967 and a segregated road system is used in the West Bank to carve it into Bantustans limiting free movement, free association and economic activity.

Israel’s eighteen-foot concrete and barbed wire barrier “security fence” which is based on the expropriation of Palestinian land and the physical separation of communities has been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice and the UN. It deserves its increasingly common description as the “apartheid wall.”

The current situation

There has been no improvement since 2009 in the situation in Israel/Palestine and for many thousands not least those who have been killed, been injured or been dispossessed the situation is worse.

The STUC joined the international community in condemning the horrific kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli teenagers  which is one of central the reasons cited for the current Israeli violence in Gaza.  It is far from clear that the claims made by the Israeli Government that the killings are linked to Hamas is true  and even if it were true, there can be no justification for the scale and nature of the current Israeli attack on the people of Gaza.  Equally, STUC has condemned the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, but neither does this justify the scale and nature of the so-called response.

Whatever actions we in the West might desire of the Government in Gaza and of the Palestinian Authority, it is inconceivable that peace can be built while the current injustices in Israel/Palestine continue.  The viability of an independent Palestinian state has been ceaselessly undermined by successive Israeli Governments and it is in the power of Israel and no other party to begin to right the wrongs of generations, starting with the dismantling of illegal settlements and sitting down to negotiating a just peace based upon United Nations Resolutions and international law. 

We desperately need a ceasefire, but a ceasefire can only be temporary until fundamental injustices are addressed.

There are many examples of national oppression across the world whether within or between states.  STUC condemns all such incidences and actively campaigns against many of these injustices.

It is sometime, therefore asked of us, why Israel/Palestine continues to be a priority and why it is Israel rather than other countries upon whom we argue that BDS should be applied.

There are a number of reasons.

1)    The United Kingdom has a particular historical responsibility in the area.  As the former colonial power;  the author of the Balfour Declaration and the party to the 1948 partition, it must play a positive role in fostering peace. 

2)    The UK does not play this role.  It continues to have a military relationship with the Israeli state and fails to argue in a consistent manner for the upholding of international law.  Whilst we might have certain tactical and policy differences with the UK Government over its stance on China, or Iran, Zimbabwe, Syria or other countries where human rights abuses are common, we are generally both on the same side in condemning repression.

3)    Because the UK and many in the international community do not take effective action to force Israel to contemplate a just peace, the situation in Israel/Palestine becomes ‘normalised’.  Settlements which are illegal under international law are just described as settlements, the ‘separation wall’ is described as a ‘security wall’ etc.  As the situation becomes normalised and people begin to accept that ‘that’s just the way things are over there’ the prospects of justice and peace diminish.

4)    However distant a prospect achieving peace and justice might be.  A just peace in Israel/Palestine could be the catalyst for achieving wider peace in the region and across the world.

5)    As a democracy, at least for the majority of Israeli citizens, and in its desire to normalise the situation in Israel/Palestine, the Israeli state can be pressured through a targeted BDS campaign and the efforts of the international community to return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a lasting peace, but only if the pressure increases.  This pressure must be political, economic and cultural.  It must, as priority, begin with the cessation of the sale of all military equipment to Israel.

Dave Moxham

Flying the flag for LGBT Rights

So the Commonwealth Games are in full swing, and so is our rainbow flag campaign. Here are some pictures of unions flying rainbow flags in solidarity with LGBT people around the Commonwealth.

Rainbow flags outside the EIS

Rainbow flags in the window of the NUJ and Equity offices

A rainbow flag in the window of the Musician's Union

A rainbow flag fluttering on the GMB office

A rainbow flag on the UCU building

Unite flying the rainbow flag

Flying the Flag for LGBT Rights!

Today’s the day. The opening ceremony is in just a few hours and Glasgow is buzzing and melting! What a great combination. To top it all off here are some pictures of rainbow flags to brighten up your day.

The STUC is pleased that the response to our campaign to fly the rainbow flag has been so successful. Trade Union buildings across Glasgow and all over Scotland will be flying the flag.

The Rainbow Flag on the STUC building 

A number of Councils have also joined us including Dumfries and Galloway, East Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire and West Lothian. Glasgow City Council, as host city, is required to work within strict protocols around the flying of flags during the Commonwealth Games. It did, however, fly the rainbow flag from the City Chambers on 11 July as a symbol of solidarity with the LGBT community in Glasgow and across the Commonwealth.

The STUC was also pleased that the Scottish Government agreed to join our campaign and fly the rainbow flag on St Andrew’s House for the duration of the Games. This is the first time that the rainbow flag has officially flown on a Scottish Government building.

The Rainbow Flag on St Andrew's House

By flying the rainbow flag during the Games we aim to show solidarity with LGBT people all over the Commonwealth. Currently 42 out of 53 Commonwealth countries criminalise homosexuality resulting in LGBT people being subject to harassment, degrading treatment and even imprisonment or death. This is simply unacceptable and it is right that we should use our Commonwealth Games to raise awareness and promote a more positive vision of the future.

Join our campaign by posting pictures during the Commonwealth Games using the hashtag  #gamespride

Helen Martin
STUC

Holiday Pay Claims Explained

 If you are paid less than your normal pay when you take a holiday then you might have a claim against your employer worth thousands of pounds.

You will have a claim if you normally receive additional payments on top of your basic salary. These might include payments for:

    Commission;
    Regular Bonus;
    Overtime (whether contractual or not);
    Shift allowance;
    Nightshift payments
    On-call allowance;
    Unsociable hours payments; or
    Any other payment linked to carrying out your job.

If your employer stops making these payments during periods of annual leave then you will have a claim. Due to a recent change in the law, it is unlawful for your employer to pay you basic pay when you are on holiday. If your employer has not been paying you in the correct way, you can ask the Employment Tribunal to order your employer to pay you the difference between what you have been paid and what you should have been paid. You may be entitled to claim for any underpayments going back to 1998.

It doesn’t matter what job you do. You might be working in a call centre and receiving commission for any sales you make. You might be working in a care home and receiving an allowance for when you work at night or at weekends. It doesn’t matter who your employer is- do not assume that because you work for a big employer with an HR department that they have been paying you in the right way- the chances are, they have not.   

Useful links

http://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/Holiday-Pay-Claims.aspx

http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/briefings/overpay.html

Please note: it is unlikely that you will have a claim if the only additional payment you receive is for expenses

Mandela Day Book Appeal 2014

To celebrate Nelson Mandela International Day the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) and Action for Southern Africa Scotland (ACTSA) are asking people to donate children’s books to be sent to school libraries in Nelson Mandela’s home Province of Eastern Cape, with which Scotland has a particular link.

Trade Unions are opening up their offices across Scotland to the general public on Friday 18th July as collection points for the book appeal.

What are needed are children’s books, in English, to encourage reading for fun. Story books or factual books for all ages from pre-school to teenagers are welcome.

The offices taking part in the appeal are:     

Glasgow
STUC
333 Woodlands Road
Glasgow
G3 6NG

Edinburgh
NASUWT
35 Young Street North Lane
Edinburgh
EH2 4JD

Dundee
GMB
Kimberley Buildings,
38 Whitehall Street
Dundee
DD1 4AF

Inverness
UNISON Highland Area Resource Centre
53 Shore Street,
Inverness,
IV1 1NF


A full list of organisations taking part in the appeal is available here: http://mandeladayscotland.org

All donations, big or small, towards the cost of shipping the books are also gratefully received.


Helen Martin
STUC

Why the Commonwealth needs to listen to its LGBTI citizens

Below is a guest blog from the Kaleidoscope Trust. The Kaleidoscope Trust is a UK based charity working to uphold the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people internationally. 

The Commonwealth Games is one of the world’s largest and greatest sporting events, bringing together athletes from every corner of the world. From Africa to Asia, the Pacific to the Caribbean, the Commonwealth’s 2 billion people make up 30% of the world’s population and are of many faiths, races, languages, cultures and traditions. The Games themselves are an amazing celebration of the diversity of the Commonwealth – an organisation that refers to itself as a family, held together by the shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

In that light it is shocking that of the 53 member nations of the Commonwealth family, 42 continue to criminalise consensual same-sex activities between adults. More than ninety per cent of Commonwealth citizens live in a country that criminalises homosexuality. Over half the countries in the world that have laws banning homosexuality are in the Commonwealth. Across the Commonwealth lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people are denied equal access to rights, education, employment, housing and healthcare.

Sadly, despite the fact that there are LGBTI people and organisations in every Commonwealth country, our existence is often denied, our rights are violated and we are treated as a foreign and alien import. The voices of LGBTI people continue to be ignored in many Commonwealth spaces – political, diplomatic, sporting and otherwise. Commonwealth leaders regularly deny that LGBTI people exist in their countries, or where they do accept our existence they paint us as immoral, disordered.

Countering this myth is what underlies a lot of the work that the Kaleidoscope Trust does.  For true equality to exist across the Commonwealth, attitudes toward LGBTI people need to be changed wherever we face social and legal discrimination. In the battle for public opinion visibility is our most powerful tool. When we are visible it becomes much harder for the opponents of equality to deny our existence. When we are seen as what we are – sons and daughters, siblings and parents, workers and bosses, friends and neighbours – it becomes much harder to paint us as immoral, threatening and foreign.

That’s why we’ve been working with the Equality Network and Pride Glasgow to ensure that when the Commonwealth Games is celebrating its amazing diversity, LGBTI people are not forgotten. We are working with LGBTI people from all over the Commonwealth to make sure our voices are heard – at the LGBTI Human Rights Conference, the Pride House, Glasgow Pride and other events. Through raising our voices together we can counter the narrative that being gay, or lesbian, or bisexual or trans, or intersex is a European or an American peculiarity. Through raising awareness of the amazing work that is going on around the Commonwealth to resist invidious laws and discriminatory attitudes we can truly celebrate the diversity of LGBTI struggle, successes and lives. LGBT people are part of the incredible diversity of the Commonwealth family and we are committed to its values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

That’s also why the Kaleidoscope Trust is delighted to support the STUC’s call for unions, employers and the public sector to show their support for LGBTI rights in the Commonwealth by flying the rainbow flag during the Games. If visibility is our strongest weapon, the more rainbow flags, proudly flown from buildings across Glasgow and Scotland, the more visible we are. The rainbow flag is a vital tool in showing our solidarity with LGBTI communities across the Commonwealth and showing that LGBTI people are a part of the Commonwealth family.

For the time being, the voices of LGBTI people may be ignored by many of the governments and institutions of the Commonwealth, but we are not going away. Governments must heed us, must meet with us and must embrace us as full and equal members of society. Anything less will fatally tarnish the Commonwealth, render the Games’ fine commitment to inclusion for all meaningless, and call into question the apparently shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Alistair Stewart 

Assistant Director

The Kaleidoscope Trust

Why unions can fly the rainbow flag but Pride House can’t

It might be somewhat geeky but in the course of organising the STUC’s campaign around flying the rainbow flag, (for more info on this read my last blog) I discovered a quirk in the law.

In the run up to the Commonwealth Games the Scottish Government passed some legislation restricting advertising in and around Games venues while the Games are being held. This legislation is for the most part reasonable and designed to prevent advertisers taking advantage of the Games and, in particular, aims to prevent ambush marketing, where companies try to associate themselves with an event and profit from it without going to the expense of actually sponsoring it.

This legislation therefore restricts displays (including flags) in specifically determined Games zones, in an effort to keep any unauthorised profiteering to a minimum.  

Within the legislation, quite rightly, there is a specific exemption for protest which means that the STUC, Trade Unions and others can fly the rainbow flag, even within restricted Games zones, without falling foul of the legislation. We are after all not aiming to profit from the Games, we are simply raising awareness of the fact that a group of people are routinely and systematically denied their Human Rights all across the Commonwealth – with 42 out of 53 Commonwealth countries criminalising homosexuality.  The legislation recognises our right to have a demonstration and to promote a campaign and therefore we can fly the rainbow flag as a symbol of protest and solidarity.  

So far so reasonable but then we get to Pride House.

When organising a rainbow flag flying campaign you very quickly run up against the question: ‘where do I get a six foot rainbow flag from anyway?’  To answer this, I turned to Leap Sport Scotland, the organisers of Pride House, naturally expecting Pride House to be adorned with giant rainbows advertising its existence to all the world. I was surprised to learn, however, that they had received instruction that no rainbow flags were to be flown on the building as it is within a restricted Games area.

Um...what?

Well you see it all comes down to the wording of the exemption around demonstrations. While protest is allowed to publicise a campaign, the exemption does not apply to activity that promotes a good or service.

Pride House is a venue that welcomes LGBT athletes, fans, and their supporters during international sporting events. Akin to the various national houses, it is a welcoming place to enjoy the event, to learn about LGBT sport and homophobia in sport, and to build relations. In this respect Pride House could be described as offering a ‘service’ to LGBT people during the games, and advertising a ‘service’ is not allowed.

So here we are in the strange situation where Trade Unions and others will be flying the flag for LGBT rights during the games but Pride House is prevented from doing the same.

This to me seems odd and out of step with the ultimate desire of the legislation – to restrict companies from profiteering and prevent ambush marketing. Given that Pride House is designed to support LGBT athletes and visitors during the Games, it seems a shame that it cannot identify itself with the internally recognised symbol of LGBT equality (after all I am sure Scotland House will fly the saltire).

The STUC, for one, hopes that this decision will be reconsidered before the start of the Games as making LGBT people visible within sport and within the Commonwealth more generally is a key aim of our campaign and also seems to be a key part of running a Pride House in the first place.

Helen Martin

STUC