'What else can we do?'
Here's an article by James Undy writing in The Independent - about trade union strike plans over public sector pensions.
I don't know anything about James Undy - but he clearly has some experience of trade unions at a senior level - and makes some telling points.
As for Mark Serwotka - there's no point in asking plaintive, rhetorical questions of the viewing public - i.e. 'What else can we do?'.
Union leaders always have choices - and that's why they receive a very hefty salary - for making the right choices that protect the interests of ordinary union members.
Pensions - ramping up the rhetoric
"I was joking when I blogged that ultra-left union activists were agitating for a general strike “because the last one went so well”.
Then up popped UNISON’s General Secretary Dave Prentis talking in all apparent seriousness about the biggest action since 1926.
Citing another noble defeat, he even went on to assert that “this won’t be the miners’ strike. We are going to win”.
No insult is intended, but I do wonder if Dave P’s diverse workforces are as ready for an open-ended dispute as the close-knit and resilient mining communities. But he then rather undermined his argument by explaining that’s because they’ve got a £30 million strike fund.
As someone who’s been there as a union executive member, I learnt the hard way that once the employer knows how much money you’ve got to spend they can sit out any dispute. However you deploy it, £30 million is still less than £20 per UNISON member.
And rolling regional action is nothing new – it’s what civil servants tried in our 1987 pay dispute. It prolongs the action, certainly, but by definition it reduces its nationwide impact. And it invites unhelpful contrasts between “heartland” areas and ones where the scale and turnout are lower.
Sean O’Grady, analysing the battle for public opinion in today’s main paper, counsels retreat.
And I fear that this kind of showboating also plays into the other yawning trap now facing public sector unions - the support represented by paid time off for union officials.
Plenty of opponents are onto this now. The valid counter-argument that local representatives help smooth relations at work is hardly helped by blood-curdling talk of the coming conflagration. And boasting you’re awash with money does rather invite the riposte – well, you can use it to pay for your reps then.
As I’ve said I sympathise with union leaders who struggle to spell out the realities of life to their members. Behind the fury, PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka sounded baffled and helpless when he pleaded on Sky yesterday morning “What else can we do?”.
And for the “ordinary” members it really is a lot to take. But as the half-hearted strike votes show, they’re intelligent and realistic enough to listen to a hard-headed assessment of the options if their leaders put it to them.
It’s the activists they need to face down. Staggeringly, at UNISON’s conference this week Dave Prentis will address delegates who think he’s too right wing.
But he needs to start preparing the ones who’ll listen for the inevitable compromises ahead – not ramping up the rhetoric. Unless he really does want a re-run of 1926."
I don't know anything about James Undy - but he clearly has some experience of trade unions at a senior level - and makes some telling points.
As for Mark Serwotka - there's no point in asking plaintive, rhetorical questions of the viewing public - i.e. 'What else can we do?'.
Union leaders always have choices - and that's why they receive a very hefty salary - for making the right choices that protect the interests of ordinary union members.
Pensions - ramping up the rhetoric
"I was joking when I blogged that ultra-left union activists were agitating for a general strike “because the last one went so well”.
Then up popped UNISON’s General Secretary Dave Prentis talking in all apparent seriousness about the biggest action since 1926.
Citing another noble defeat, he even went on to assert that “this won’t be the miners’ strike. We are going to win”.
No insult is intended, but I do wonder if Dave P’s diverse workforces are as ready for an open-ended dispute as the close-knit and resilient mining communities. But he then rather undermined his argument by explaining that’s because they’ve got a £30 million strike fund.
As someone who’s been there as a union executive member, I learnt the hard way that once the employer knows how much money you’ve got to spend they can sit out any dispute. However you deploy it, £30 million is still less than £20 per UNISON member.
And rolling regional action is nothing new – it’s what civil servants tried in our 1987 pay dispute. It prolongs the action, certainly, but by definition it reduces its nationwide impact. And it invites unhelpful contrasts between “heartland” areas and ones where the scale and turnout are lower.
Sean O’Grady, analysing the battle for public opinion in today’s main paper, counsels retreat.
And I fear that this kind of showboating also plays into the other yawning trap now facing public sector unions - the support represented by paid time off for union officials.
Plenty of opponents are onto this now. The valid counter-argument that local representatives help smooth relations at work is hardly helped by blood-curdling talk of the coming conflagration. And boasting you’re awash with money does rather invite the riposte – well, you can use it to pay for your reps then.
As I’ve said I sympathise with union leaders who struggle to spell out the realities of life to their members. Behind the fury, PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka sounded baffled and helpless when he pleaded on Sky yesterday morning “What else can we do?”.
And for the “ordinary” members it really is a lot to take. But as the half-hearted strike votes show, they’re intelligent and realistic enough to listen to a hard-headed assessment of the options if their leaders put it to them.
It’s the activists they need to face down. Staggeringly, at UNISON’s conference this week Dave Prentis will address delegates who think he’s too right wing.
But he needs to start preparing the ones who’ll listen for the inevitable compromises ahead – not ramping up the rhetoric. Unless he really does want a re-run of 1926."
