Hello readers to my first blog! I've been 'forced' into spreading my concerns due to the apparent, and I use that word carefully as there are more powerful people than me who would have a better idea. Apparent inaction over starting discussions, opening negotiations and basically treating the special local government conference vote on this issue with respect. Respect to the Branch's which raised the composite motion, spoke on it and the overwhelming majority who voted on it, myself included of course.
I have attended 2 Regional local government meetings since the decision was made to throw away the old offer and to re-open negotiations. The first meeting discussed the vote, and became somewhat 'heated' with representatives stating that they resented being told that they had not campaigned enough for a 'no vote'. When they believed they had, but their members were telling them something else, they were accepting the 2.2% derisory offer. 'Who are we to go against the membership, we are after all supposedly a member led union', was somewhat approaching the argument being put forward.
Now I do have some sympathy with this point of view, as a close district council branch recently 'folded', though has since 'unfolded', due to the committee ignoring the wishes of the membership. So there maybe some danger which needs consideration with our new stance.
Getting back to the meeting, there seemed to be a lack of acceptance or understanding, that the information that we voted on, was suspect, and this was one of the reasons to throw away the first ballot. The 'dodgy' letter, referred to elsewhere on various other blog pages was categorically denied. This apparently coming direct from the very person concerned, and not via a third party. Giving it a degree credence which we should not question any further.
The second meeting was with our employers, the Local Government Association, or LGA. The very body who are mentioned in the dodgy letter, or so I believe not being privy to seeing it. The pre-union meet, took the surprising decision not to mention the vote at all, 'unless they raise it of course', then we will have to respond.
Our sister union colleagues who are quite vocal on strike action, but with no members have to resort to busing in full time reps, stated that they would not be re-visiting the ballot at all. An opportunity to recruit activists I would say. Not poaching of course, I'd view it as liberating them.
So the reaction from my paid union leaders is somewhat surprising to say the least. Strike action was not particularly strong in July, and was set to be about the same on our second day. I know I had lost some members as they had voiced that losing a second day of pay was too much. But 'replacements' were promised, as well as the 'usual suspects' who can be counted on at all times.
Why the lack of action to what is, I'm informed, a binding vote of conference. Perhaps this will become clear later, after May 7th with the announcement that instead of further cuts to public services, local government being the hardest hit, there will be investment! First in line will be all those thousands being paid below the living wage across our councils up and down the land. Then a decent pay rise, so people like me, don't find themselves constantly being hit by overdraft charges every month, plunging me further in the mire.
Keep your fingers crossed as that looks like all we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment