Retail & Distribution Activist: Bulletin of Socialist Party members in USDAW
October 2008 Issue 11
Usdaw leaders shaken by election results
Socialist Party member Robbie Segal shook the entire shopworkers' union USDAW by gaining 40% of the vote for General Secretary in the ballot result announced today. Robbie is a Tesco worker who on shoe-string resources with a tiny band of activists in a David and Goliath battle faced the entire USDAW official machine. The whole right wing union full time bureaucracy was mobilised to crush her, but she still managed to gain over 18,000 votes winning the moral victory by far.
The incumbent, John Hannett, had the entire union behind him – except the members. He appears in the union journal and other union publications every month. Robbie was virtually unknown to most of the members other than those that have known her first-hand as a fighter over the years. As an example, three officials, one of whom a EC member, were flown into the Central London branch meeting to argue against one Socialist Party member to secure the nomination of all the London branches for Hannett. But Robbie’s programme clearly appealed to the members by calling for an £8 minimum wage for all, no to partnership between the union and the employers- as there is in Tesco, for democracy within the union, and for an alternative to New Labour for ordinary people to have a party that genuinely represents them. Robbie also pledged to reject the £100,000 Hannett took and to continue on her Tesco wage.
The result is in no way a ringing endorsement of the current leadership. The low turnout of 13.2% reflected the fact that Hannett did his very best to subdue the issue, by calling a summer election, calling no debates with Robbie and producing no other material other than the ballot paper and a letter to the branches demanding their support. So Hannett's 7.8% support in USDAW must be seen as a massive vote of no confidence in his performance in the job.
This result, for a clearly socialist candidate in the USDAW General Secretary election is testimony to the changing mood in the unions. USDAW has for many years been the bastion of the right wing with an avid New Labourite leadership. John Hannett pulled all the stops out to use the union bureaucratic machine in his favour for this election. Robbie proved his leadership severely lacking.
This article first appeared in The Socialist. www.socialistparty.org.uk
John Hannett – you are doing well
After a week of turmoil on the financial markets, it about time we looked again at our general secretary’s income. Inflation for the basic necessities is going through the roof, so John certainly needs a ‘substantial increase’. The recent copy of Arena publishes the details of the general secretary’s income.
Income National insurance Pension Car TOTAL
September 2008 £81,742 £9,801 £16,389 £6,532 £114,464
September 2007 £78,050 £10,053 £15,172 £5,494 £108,769
No mention of the GS election?
Why is the result of the General Secretary election not posted on the Usdaw website? Can you help us? Is the conspiracy to keep the 40% vote for Robbie a secret? In the EC minutes it mentions the election but again no figures. Why is there a campaign of silence?
Campaigning for a decent living wage
‘The £8 minimum wage is unrealistic.’ This was one the main arguments out of the mouths of my opponents during the general secretary election campaign. However, they never told us what would be a ‘realistic’ minimum wage.
Every wage claim submitted by Usdaw asks for a substantial pay rise. It is never explained what a substantial pay rise is nor an amount mention.
Is the Tesco pay rise for their retail workers of 3.8% a substantial rise? Of course not! The general secretary’s pay (not including the other benefits) increased by £3,692. Now that would be a substantial increase for our members in retail.
The secret election
Since the announcement of the result for Usdaw’s general secretary election, I have been asked numerous times why there was such a poor turnout. All the comments from friends and foes considered my vote good to excellent and John Hannett’s very poor.
Of course, Hannett’s one comfort was that he won. With the whole fulltime machine supporting him, he believed they would get out his vote which he did but it was only a fraction of the membership. Some of the officials commented to me privately that they believed the letter sent by him to Usdaw employees, which contained a near instruction to ring him and pledge their allegiance, was a form of bullying. His undemocratic and unfair methods at the start of the campaign repulsed many of the officials and members
There were a number of reasons for the low turnout. When John Hannett raised the election at the EC, I complained that if it was being held over the summer period and this would decrease the numbers voting. I was proved correct.
Another factor why so few of our members voted was because they had no idea that an election was taking place. It was truly a secret election – the Union’s members had no idea that there was an election until the ballot paper dropped through their letterbox.
There was a single letter to the branches, which is attended by a mere handful of members, informing the branch of the election. There was no mention of the election in the members’ magazine Arena which is delivered to every member’s home. There was not even a mention in the activists’ journal Network. Clearly Hannett expected the fewer members knew about his opponent’s programme and strategy all the better for him and would give him an advantage in the contest. The blame for the low turnout is the fault of Hannett’s unfair running of the election,
In fact Hannett’s whole strategy was flawed. However the real weakness of his campaign was that his promise for more of the same never found an echo with the bulk of our members. What has the Union really achieved over the five years of Hannett’s control? In the present economic crisis, many members fear the effect of the economic crisis on their living standards. They will be demanding wage increases to defend their living standards. In response to my demand for a £8 minimum wage, the officials called it ‘unrealistic’. What is realistic? The union normally submits a claim for a substantial increase. What is a substantial increase? The only thing unrealistic is members are expected to survive on or just above the minimum wage.
If Hannett had conducted a serious campaign to increase wages then the members would have voted in their droves for him. But constrained by the Union’s support for New Labour’s pro-employer policies meant that a real campaign against the big retail companies is a massive ‘no no’. With capitalism in crisis, what can Hannett and his New Labour supporters really offer the hard working and low paid members of our union.
At the start of the campaign, I suggested the Executive Council should write guidelines for the election that would take the power away from the incumbent to dictate the timing and conduct of the election. This the EC rejected. However my vote has frightened the bureaucracy. They could have lost the ballot so now they will panic and try to change the rules to ensure the bureaucracy can never be threatened again by a real challenger. We will have to be on our guard against attacks on the democracy in our Union.
After my 40% vote, the members should be aware that there is a strong possibility that right wing leaders of our Union will launch attacks against those officials who never gave their support to John Hannett. It is rumoured that a list was kept of the officials that rung pledging their support for him.
Finally after what has turned into a rather curious campaign, it appears that the union is trying to keep the result secret. The result has not been published on the Usdaw’s website and even in the EC minutes the result was not published. Curious, to say the least!
Email addresses needed
If you have a colleague who would like to receive a regular copy of the Activist or other materials to democratise the our union then send their e-mail address to shopworker@socialistparty.org.uk
Showing posts with label john hannett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john hannett. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Monday, 28 July 2008
Morrisons Pay Insult
Last week staff at Morrisons were voting over whether to accept a pay deal negotiated by the union. That is if they knew about the ballot at all. Okay so we had a poster in store saying there was a pay ballot, but if you have only started at the company within the last year (like majority of the staff, at least 5% of the staff are replenished each month) and you don’t know that much about unions you probably won’t realise you are of the people who has a vote. Even for someone who is slightly more clued up like myself, I had to wait until the day after to vote as the personnel office where the ballot box is was closed.
A Morrisons worker
The terms of the deal are even harder to find out. A conversation with our union rep led to me finding out that the deal would probably mean an increase of £5 a week in our pay with our wage going up to £6 an hour in February next year. Considering that most workers at Morrisons earn 4p above minimum wage, there perhaps is a sense of at least this is going in the right direction a bit. Later I found out more about the offer, but not from the union website which I looked at first and found absolutely nothing about the offer. Rather it was from an unofficial staff forum that I finally found out that with the deal pay will go up to £5.86 in October (when the minimum wage goes up to £5.73) and then £6 in February.
Whilst this increase means that we will be an extra 20p an hour above the minimum wage in February next year it still means our pay will be very low, far below the European Decency threshold which stands at £8 an hour. Furthermore, with inflation soaring this increase is likely to be swept away very quickly. Given the £612 million pre-tax profits Morrisons made last year, the surely much more could have been fought for?
The lacklustre approach of the union leadership in relation to this is indicative of a great number of other problems Morrisons workers face and the union fails to take action over. One of the biggest problems is understaffing which means that workers effectively have to do the jobs of two or more people, unsurprisingly this leads to accidents and taking short-cuts with health and safety. My department alone has at least one accident a day if not more!
John Hannett (USDAW General Secretary) gets £100,000 a year salary plus a free Jaguar – I wonder how closely he feels the pains that the members he is supposed to represent have to endure. What we need is a leadership prepared to fight, if they took the pitifully low wage we have to accept then their might be a fight for a minimum wage of £8 for all retail workers. Such a demand is in Robbie Segal’s programme as she stands against Hannett in the General Secreatry elections, which is why I shall be building her campaign in my store.
A Morrisons worker
The terms of the deal are even harder to find out. A conversation with our union rep led to me finding out that the deal would probably mean an increase of £5 a week in our pay with our wage going up to £6 an hour in February next year. Considering that most workers at Morrisons earn 4p above minimum wage, there perhaps is a sense of at least this is going in the right direction a bit. Later I found out more about the offer, but not from the union website which I looked at first and found absolutely nothing about the offer. Rather it was from an unofficial staff forum that I finally found out that with the deal pay will go up to £5.86 in October (when the minimum wage goes up to £5.73) and then £6 in February.
Whilst this increase means that we will be an extra 20p an hour above the minimum wage in February next year it still means our pay will be very low, far below the European Decency threshold which stands at £8 an hour. Furthermore, with inflation soaring this increase is likely to be swept away very quickly. Given the £612 million pre-tax profits Morrisons made last year, the surely much more could have been fought for?
The lacklustre approach of the union leadership in relation to this is indicative of a great number of other problems Morrisons workers face and the union fails to take action over. One of the biggest problems is understaffing which means that workers effectively have to do the jobs of two or more people, unsurprisingly this leads to accidents and taking short-cuts with health and safety. My department alone has at least one accident a day if not more!
John Hannett (USDAW General Secretary) gets £100,000 a year salary plus a free Jaguar – I wonder how closely he feels the pains that the members he is supposed to represent have to endure. What we need is a leadership prepared to fight, if they took the pitifully low wage we have to accept then their might be a fight for a minimum wage of £8 for all retail workers. Such a demand is in Robbie Segal’s programme as she stands against Hannett in the General Secreatry elections, which is why I shall be building her campaign in my store.
Friday, 27 June 2008
UK union refuses to smear Tesco - Tesco: under fire in US
Taken from
PR Week.com
FRONT PAGE: UK union refuses to smear Tesco -Tesco: under fire in US
Clare O'Connor 12-Jun-08
A major UK trade union is declining to join US counterparts who have vowed to damage the reputation of Tesco around the world.
America's 1.3 million- member United Food and Commercial Workers' Union (UFCW) has pledged to shame Tesco into improving treatment of employees at its US Fresh & Easy chain. Labour MP Jon Cruddas is backing the campaign, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have urged Tesco to co-operate with the UFCW. But, in a boost for Tesco, the UK's Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw) says it will not publicly come out in support of the campaign. ‘Obviously we're aware of the American campaign,' said Usdaw general secretary John Hannett. But he insisted: ‘Tesco has a record of recognising unions across the world.'But a trade union insider said Usdaw was not entering the row for fear of upsetting its partnership agreement with Tesco. ‘If Tesco picks up the papers and sees Usdaw criticising it, that will rock the boat,' said the source.Tesco and Usdaw's agreement means there are union representatives covering each shop, with Tesco paying for recruitment and training.
document.
PR Week.com
FRONT PAGE: UK union refuses to smear Tesco -Tesco: under fire in US
Clare O'Connor 12-Jun-08
A major UK trade union is declining to join US counterparts who have vowed to damage the reputation of Tesco around the world.
America's 1.3 million- member United Food and Commercial Workers' Union (UFCW) has pledged to shame Tesco into improving treatment of employees at its US Fresh & Easy chain. Labour MP Jon Cruddas is backing the campaign, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have urged Tesco to co-operate with the UFCW. But, in a boost for Tesco, the UK's Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Usdaw) says it will not publicly come out in support of the campaign. ‘Obviously we're aware of the American campaign,' said Usdaw general secretary John Hannett. But he insisted: ‘Tesco has a record of recognising unions across the world.'But a trade union insider said Usdaw was not entering the row for fear of upsetting its partnership agreement with Tesco. ‘If Tesco picks up the papers and sees Usdaw criticising it, that will rock the boat,' said the source.Tesco and Usdaw's agreement means there are union representatives covering each shop, with Tesco paying for recruitment and training.
document.
Monday, 9 June 2008
Opposing Partnership – Building a fighting alternative
By Robbie Segal
(Candidate for Usdaw General Secretary)
In the Usdaw General Secretary election in 2003, John Hannett only received 19,063 votes while the National Officer, Val Pugh, obtained 13,729- votes and the Broad Left’s candidate Maureen Madden, standing on an anti-partnership programme, received 12,313 votes. Therefore, only 45,206 out of a possible 318,246 ballot papers were returned - a turnout of just over 14%. Hannett obtained less than 6% of the possible electorate. Clearly, John Hannett’s mandate is tenuous.
John Hannett, in his four years as general secretary, has been the most loyal of the very loyal supporters of New Labour. This acceptance of all aspects of New Labour pro business agenda meant that Usdaw had to passionately endorse the concept of their ‘social partnership’ strategy. In the EC statement to the 1998 ADM, it states, ‘Social partnership . . . will mean both unions and companies learning to do things differently. Some of the traditional ways we have of doing things may need to change.’ But have these changes brought any real benefits for Usdaw members?
Let’s remind ourselves of some of the Usdaw’s statement made 10 years ago. The EC document states, ‘It means the union is consulted on a wider range of issues’ and ‘Partnership means proper dialogue with the Union before decisions are taken, not giving us a “like it or lump it” choice.’ Is this consultation why we have had SYA forced on us? Is why so many of our members feel the forum process is little more than a joke? It appears the consultation part of the partnership is not working.
The statements claims, ‘The Union will be talking to employers about their political and ethical responsibilities. This might cover issues such as:
• where they source their overseas goods from;
• whether their suppliers overseas use child labour;
• packaging and recycling practices and the company’s role in the local community. ,
With the above issues making negative headlines for retail companies in the media, it would be interesting to see the responses to our protests on any of these issues because they don’t seem to have appeared in the press.
The truth is that Tesco now tell us what is about to happen and our influence is negligible. A good example of this is that Tesco now has reduced the premium rates for Sunday working and the result is we have members working on numerous Sunday contracts. This could be used to undermine unity in any future struggles. And surely no trade union negotiator would ever accept such a situation. When the members justly complain to the shop stewards, we are advised to say its Tesco’s policy and we have no influence on corporate policy. Partnership is a farce.
Usdaw’s basic definition of ‘Social partnership’ states it: “means employers and unions co-operating to improve working conditions and to give employees a greater say in how their company is run.” The statement continues
• It recognises that the union has a shared interest in the success of a company, because this is how secure jobs are delivered.
• It recognises that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way forward.
• And it recognises that employees can only develop their own agenda through an independent trade union.
Usdaw’s acceptance of partnership means that struggle must be avoided under all circumstances. Partnership has had a devastating effect for Usdaw retail members. Retail stores are the new sweat shops with workers earning a few pence above the minimum wage. Tesco pays its new starters £5.94 per hour. The minimum wage is £5.52 per hour. A Tesco workers’ wage will increase to £6.34 but to win this meagre sum, Usdaw has conceded terms and conditions.
Although Usdaw boasts that the ‘partnership’ has benefitted its members, the real beneficiary is Tesco and the other large retail company. Tesco now controls 31% of the grocery trade (Sainsbury’s 16%, Asda 16% and Morrison 11%) and one in every eight pounds spent in the UK is spent in Tesco stores. Tesco’s profits last year totalled a staggering £2.85 billion. Even with massive profits, Tesco looks towards schemes to maximise profits. It was reported that Tesco over the last few years have been establishing off shore companies in the Cayman Islands. It has been reported, this will mean they will save millions in taxes .
In the USA, Tesco has rejected the concept of partnership by refusing to even talk to the trade unions. The USA Tesco worker can expect £5 an hour but Tesco (USA) generously will consider thinking about yearly pay rises. In Poland Tesco’s employees have not had a pay rise for 8 years. Profit and anti trade unionism is Tesco real attitude towards partnership.
Tesco is the largest private sector employer in the country with over 275,000 employees. Usdaw has 135,000 members working in Tesco; representing over a third of Usdaw’s total membership. However, trade union density in Tesco stores remains less than fifty percent. A large portion of Usdaw's resources is directed towards increasing its membership in Tesco. But is partnership winning for the members in Tesco.
Partnership is not a new concept for the unions. It has long been a dream of a section of the labour movement to do away with the idea of the class struggle. After the 1926 General Strike, the Mond/Turner talks attempted to create a better working environment for employer/worker relations. However, under the impact of the 1929 economic slump the talks collapsed. Unfortunately for the trade union liberal their desire for social justice has been spoiled by employer’s greed for higher and higher profits.
These ideas of social peace have been a long time dream of liberal sections of the labour bureaucracy. Unable to compete with the Thatcher’s onslaught against the trade unions, these so-called leaders desperately grasped at any alternative that meant they never had to lead any form of industrial battle. With Blair’s New Labour government in control the trade union leaders accepted this class collaborationist agenda. Usdaw leaders jumped happily onto the bandwagon. First Bill Connor and now John Hannett have pushed Usdaw along the Blairite road further than any other union within the TUC. The proof of the bankruptcy of this strategy is the low wages paid in the retail sector.
Usdaw’s partnership strategy will lull our membership into a false sense of security. Taking the fight out of the membership armoury will mean when Tesco is forced to change tact because a change in government or under the impact of an economic crisis then the membership will fail to fight which will in turn lead to a plummeting of the membership.
However the strength of Usdaw in retail is backed by the well organised distribution centres. Some of these depots have near 100% membership. Therefore, these well organised distribution centres underpin the Union’s strength in the stores. The acceptance of partnership has a knock-on effect because the Union cannot defend any of its members because to do so would expose the partnership strategy for what it is. Recently many of the depots with the best agreements have been closed and rather than nationwide resistance the Usdaw leaders have allowed them to be picked off one-by-one.
The Tesco/Usdaw Partnership agreement
It would be wrong to reject the Partnership agreement out of hand. If the Tesco/Usdaw partnership is viewed as any other agreement then there are some good aspects within it.
• It allows all the reps in a store to meet once a month for two hours. If this is used correctly then it should be used to develop workplace organisation, ensuring members’ issues are resolved and build an activity culture.
• When new employees are being informed about the company, the shop steward is allowed a half-hour session with all new starters. This is the most important period for recruitment new starters to the Union.
• Every shop steward or Health and Safety reps has a programme of training which involves the Union.
• The agreement also allows for the use of Recruitment and Development Reps who are allowed out of their workplaces for 13 weeks to aid the recruitment in other stores
Congratulations to the official that pushed for the monthly rep team meetings that were inserted in the last renegotiation of the agreement.
However there are some parts of the agreement that has dangers for the Union. In agreeing to include the forum process within the Partnership document, the Union accepted an alternative method of solving employees’ grievance problems. Tesco is saying to their employees, you don’t need to go through the shop stewards because you can raise your concerns through the forums. Clearly this is an attempt by the companies to undermine the union by offering an alternative grievance structure for their employees. The Usdaw leadership agreed.
Partnership is not just an agreement it is a complete approach to industrial relations that results in the acceptance of the demands of Tesco and the other retail companies. In the long term the partnership will collapse and the union leaders will not have prepared the members for the onslaught by the bosses.
June 2008
(Candidate for Usdaw General Secretary)
In the Usdaw General Secretary election in 2003, John Hannett only received 19,063 votes while the National Officer, Val Pugh, obtained 13,729- votes and the Broad Left’s candidate Maureen Madden, standing on an anti-partnership programme, received 12,313 votes. Therefore, only 45,206 out of a possible 318,246 ballot papers were returned - a turnout of just over 14%. Hannett obtained less than 6% of the possible electorate. Clearly, John Hannett’s mandate is tenuous.
John Hannett, in his four years as general secretary, has been the most loyal of the very loyal supporters of New Labour. This acceptance of all aspects of New Labour pro business agenda meant that Usdaw had to passionately endorse the concept of their ‘social partnership’ strategy. In the EC statement to the 1998 ADM, it states, ‘Social partnership . . . will mean both unions and companies learning to do things differently. Some of the traditional ways we have of doing things may need to change.’ But have these changes brought any real benefits for Usdaw members?
Let’s remind ourselves of some of the Usdaw’s statement made 10 years ago. The EC document states, ‘It means the union is consulted on a wider range of issues’ and ‘Partnership means proper dialogue with the Union before decisions are taken, not giving us a “like it or lump it” choice.’ Is this consultation why we have had SYA forced on us? Is why so many of our members feel the forum process is little more than a joke? It appears the consultation part of the partnership is not working.
The statements claims, ‘The Union will be talking to employers about their political and ethical responsibilities. This might cover issues such as:
• where they source their overseas goods from;
• whether their suppliers overseas use child labour;
• packaging and recycling practices and the company’s role in the local community. ,
With the above issues making negative headlines for retail companies in the media, it would be interesting to see the responses to our protests on any of these issues because they don’t seem to have appeared in the press.
The truth is that Tesco now tell us what is about to happen and our influence is negligible. A good example of this is that Tesco now has reduced the premium rates for Sunday working and the result is we have members working on numerous Sunday contracts. This could be used to undermine unity in any future struggles. And surely no trade union negotiator would ever accept such a situation. When the members justly complain to the shop stewards, we are advised to say its Tesco’s policy and we have no influence on corporate policy. Partnership is a farce.
Usdaw’s basic definition of ‘Social partnership’ states it: “means employers and unions co-operating to improve working conditions and to give employees a greater say in how their company is run.” The statement continues
• It recognises that the union has a shared interest in the success of a company, because this is how secure jobs are delivered.
• It recognises that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way forward.
• And it recognises that employees can only develop their own agenda through an independent trade union.
Usdaw’s acceptance of partnership means that struggle must be avoided under all circumstances. Partnership has had a devastating effect for Usdaw retail members. Retail stores are the new sweat shops with workers earning a few pence above the minimum wage. Tesco pays its new starters £5.94 per hour. The minimum wage is £5.52 per hour. A Tesco workers’ wage will increase to £6.34 but to win this meagre sum, Usdaw has conceded terms and conditions.
Although Usdaw boasts that the ‘partnership’ has benefitted its members, the real beneficiary is Tesco and the other large retail company. Tesco now controls 31% of the grocery trade (Sainsbury’s 16%, Asda 16% and Morrison 11%) and one in every eight pounds spent in the UK is spent in Tesco stores. Tesco’s profits last year totalled a staggering £2.85 billion. Even with massive profits, Tesco looks towards schemes to maximise profits. It was reported that Tesco over the last few years have been establishing off shore companies in the Cayman Islands. It has been reported, this will mean they will save millions in taxes .
In the USA, Tesco has rejected the concept of partnership by refusing to even talk to the trade unions. The USA Tesco worker can expect £5 an hour but Tesco (USA) generously will consider thinking about yearly pay rises. In Poland Tesco’s employees have not had a pay rise for 8 years. Profit and anti trade unionism is Tesco real attitude towards partnership.
Tesco is the largest private sector employer in the country with over 275,000 employees. Usdaw has 135,000 members working in Tesco; representing over a third of Usdaw’s total membership. However, trade union density in Tesco stores remains less than fifty percent. A large portion of Usdaw's resources is directed towards increasing its membership in Tesco. But is partnership winning for the members in Tesco.
Partnership is not a new concept for the unions. It has long been a dream of a section of the labour movement to do away with the idea of the class struggle. After the 1926 General Strike, the Mond/Turner talks attempted to create a better working environment for employer/worker relations. However, under the impact of the 1929 economic slump the talks collapsed. Unfortunately for the trade union liberal their desire for social justice has been spoiled by employer’s greed for higher and higher profits.
These ideas of social peace have been a long time dream of liberal sections of the labour bureaucracy. Unable to compete with the Thatcher’s onslaught against the trade unions, these so-called leaders desperately grasped at any alternative that meant they never had to lead any form of industrial battle. With Blair’s New Labour government in control the trade union leaders accepted this class collaborationist agenda. Usdaw leaders jumped happily onto the bandwagon. First Bill Connor and now John Hannett have pushed Usdaw along the Blairite road further than any other union within the TUC. The proof of the bankruptcy of this strategy is the low wages paid in the retail sector.
Usdaw’s partnership strategy will lull our membership into a false sense of security. Taking the fight out of the membership armoury will mean when Tesco is forced to change tact because a change in government or under the impact of an economic crisis then the membership will fail to fight which will in turn lead to a plummeting of the membership.
However the strength of Usdaw in retail is backed by the well organised distribution centres. Some of these depots have near 100% membership. Therefore, these well organised distribution centres underpin the Union’s strength in the stores. The acceptance of partnership has a knock-on effect because the Union cannot defend any of its members because to do so would expose the partnership strategy for what it is. Recently many of the depots with the best agreements have been closed and rather than nationwide resistance the Usdaw leaders have allowed them to be picked off one-by-one.
The Tesco/Usdaw Partnership agreement
It would be wrong to reject the Partnership agreement out of hand. If the Tesco/Usdaw partnership is viewed as any other agreement then there are some good aspects within it.
• It allows all the reps in a store to meet once a month for two hours. If this is used correctly then it should be used to develop workplace organisation, ensuring members’ issues are resolved and build an activity culture.
• When new employees are being informed about the company, the shop steward is allowed a half-hour session with all new starters. This is the most important period for recruitment new starters to the Union.
• Every shop steward or Health and Safety reps has a programme of training which involves the Union.
• The agreement also allows for the use of Recruitment and Development Reps who are allowed out of their workplaces for 13 weeks to aid the recruitment in other stores
Congratulations to the official that pushed for the monthly rep team meetings that were inserted in the last renegotiation of the agreement.
However there are some parts of the agreement that has dangers for the Union. In agreeing to include the forum process within the Partnership document, the Union accepted an alternative method of solving employees’ grievance problems. Tesco is saying to their employees, you don’t need to go through the shop stewards because you can raise your concerns through the forums. Clearly this is an attempt by the companies to undermine the union by offering an alternative grievance structure for their employees. The Usdaw leadership agreed.
Partnership is not just an agreement it is a complete approach to industrial relations that results in the acceptance of the demands of Tesco and the other retail companies. In the long term the partnership will collapse and the union leaders will not have prepared the members for the onslaught by the bosses.
June 2008
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Reply to a letter by John Hannett asking Usdaw staff to support him for General Secretary
Dear John
General Secretary Election
The campaign team who supports Robbie Segal for General Secretary were passed your letter to Usdaw staff asking them to support you in the General Secretary Election but do you deserve their support.
The Robbie Segal team has been asked to reply on some of the staff’s behalf. We would like to make some points on your letter and as you say in the letter you are a ‘listening General Secretary’ therefore let’s hope you reflect on some of the comments and please be free to contact us if you want to be part the debate on the future of the Union.
All the quotes in this reply are in your original letter.
You start my expressing you ‘was pleased to receive the Executive Council’s endorsement. We saw no resolution to that affect in the May minutes of the EC. The members want to know does this allow you the right to circulate the EC’s endorsement on the same circular that advises the branches of the timetable for the election. It is certainly an unfair advantage you got there. Surely none of the Union’s resources can be used in support of a candidate. John was this not an inappropriate use of the Union’s resources. What would you do if someone else did this?
The next point you make is that you are only standing for the GS position ‘because of legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. Are you telling us that you don’t agree with the legislation! Surely not! Hold on, have we not had a New Labour Government for 11 years and why did they not repeal these anti trade union laws. You were on the Labour Party NEC, so why is it still on the statue book. Did you ask them to repeal the laws? Now be honest with us, it is now as much New Labour’s legislation as the Tories. What you think, John?
The next point you make is about listening. Well John the EC meeting under your leadership last about 2 hours, you can’t be listening too much to the body that runs the Union between Annual Delegate Meetings. But we will let that one go for present.
In the next paragraph, you ask for ‘a clear mandate to take the Union forward.’ When you were elected to your present post there was only a 14% turnout and you got about 6% of the total membership voting for you. Well that was not much of a mandate. If you are so keen on getting a ‘clear mandate’ then why are you holding the election over the summer when most of the members are on their holidays? Its looks like you are going to get a low turnout, John. So it won’t be much of a mandate again. But we are sure you can live with the low turn-out that if you win.
So now let’s consider your statement ‘whilst other unions are reducing staffing levels I am pleased to advise the Executive Council in May of my intention to build on the increased resources that have already been put in by increasing the staffing levels in the Divisions.’
So what is your record on the number of officials in the Divisions?
According to the 2003 Annual Report, there were 331,972 industrial members and they were serviced by 118 officers. In the last Annual Report 2007, there were 356,046 industrial members and they were serviced by 114 officials. John, there is less staff now, so ‘whilst other unions are reducing staffing’ it looks like you have done the same. You have reduced the number of Full Time Officials while their work load has increased. Do you think they are happy about their extra work? If you do then you have not been listening.
So it’s your ‘intention’ to increase the number of Officials but what happens if the EC does not agree with your strategy. Do you think the Rule Book allows you to override the EC’s rights? Interesting! Would you like to debate these points with us, John!
One of things a ‘listening General Secretary’ should know is most of the members who attend the branches think the EC minutes are a joke. The ADM delegates even instructed the EC to produce more comprehensive minutes. Now is that you listening John?
Now let’s deal with the scaremongering. We will quote the section in full. ‘There is a small minority who wish to take the Union in a different direction and this threat should not be treated lightly and could undermine all we have achieved collectively. Therefore we must guard against complacency.’
So who is this small minority? Are they the ones who disagree with you?
You ask the staff to contact you but what happens if they don’t? Bang goes their chance of promotion, why do they feel like this if you are such a ‘listening General Secretary’. We believe this statement is a form of intimidation and should not be allowed in the trade union movement and certainly not during elections.
So after considering the points in your letter, we have come to the conclusion that the Usdaw staff should support Robbie Segal for General Secretary.
For more information on Robbie’s policies or to join the debate on the future of Usdaw then visit www.robbiesegal.com or email robbie.segal@aol.com
Yours sincerely
Robbie Segal’s supporters
General Secretary Election
The campaign team who supports Robbie Segal for General Secretary were passed your letter to Usdaw staff asking them to support you in the General Secretary Election but do you deserve their support.
The Robbie Segal team has been asked to reply on some of the staff’s behalf. We would like to make some points on your letter and as you say in the letter you are a ‘listening General Secretary’ therefore let’s hope you reflect on some of the comments and please be free to contact us if you want to be part the debate on the future of the Union.
All the quotes in this reply are in your original letter.
You start my expressing you ‘was pleased to receive the Executive Council’s endorsement. We saw no resolution to that affect in the May minutes of the EC. The members want to know does this allow you the right to circulate the EC’s endorsement on the same circular that advises the branches of the timetable for the election. It is certainly an unfair advantage you got there. Surely none of the Union’s resources can be used in support of a candidate. John was this not an inappropriate use of the Union’s resources. What would you do if someone else did this?
The next point you make is that you are only standing for the GS position ‘because of legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. Are you telling us that you don’t agree with the legislation! Surely not! Hold on, have we not had a New Labour Government for 11 years and why did they not repeal these anti trade union laws. You were on the Labour Party NEC, so why is it still on the statue book. Did you ask them to repeal the laws? Now be honest with us, it is now as much New Labour’s legislation as the Tories. What you think, John?
The next point you make is about listening. Well John the EC meeting under your leadership last about 2 hours, you can’t be listening too much to the body that runs the Union between Annual Delegate Meetings. But we will let that one go for present.
In the next paragraph, you ask for ‘a clear mandate to take the Union forward.’ When you were elected to your present post there was only a 14% turnout and you got about 6% of the total membership voting for you. Well that was not much of a mandate. If you are so keen on getting a ‘clear mandate’ then why are you holding the election over the summer when most of the members are on their holidays? Its looks like you are going to get a low turnout, John. So it won’t be much of a mandate again. But we are sure you can live with the low turn-out that if you win.
So now let’s consider your statement ‘whilst other unions are reducing staffing levels I am pleased to advise the Executive Council in May of my intention to build on the increased resources that have already been put in by increasing the staffing levels in the Divisions.’
So what is your record on the number of officials in the Divisions?
According to the 2003 Annual Report, there were 331,972 industrial members and they were serviced by 118 officers. In the last Annual Report 2007, there were 356,046 industrial members and they were serviced by 114 officials. John, there is less staff now, so ‘whilst other unions are reducing staffing’ it looks like you have done the same. You have reduced the number of Full Time Officials while their work load has increased. Do you think they are happy about their extra work? If you do then you have not been listening.
So it’s your ‘intention’ to increase the number of Officials but what happens if the EC does not agree with your strategy. Do you think the Rule Book allows you to override the EC’s rights? Interesting! Would you like to debate these points with us, John!
One of things a ‘listening General Secretary’ should know is most of the members who attend the branches think the EC minutes are a joke. The ADM delegates even instructed the EC to produce more comprehensive minutes. Now is that you listening John?
Now let’s deal with the scaremongering. We will quote the section in full. ‘There is a small minority who wish to take the Union in a different direction and this threat should not be treated lightly and could undermine all we have achieved collectively. Therefore we must guard against complacency.’
So who is this small minority? Are they the ones who disagree with you?
You ask the staff to contact you but what happens if they don’t? Bang goes their chance of promotion, why do they feel like this if you are such a ‘listening General Secretary’. We believe this statement is a form of intimidation and should not be allowed in the trade union movement and certainly not during elections.
So after considering the points in your letter, we have come to the conclusion that the Usdaw staff should support Robbie Segal for General Secretary.
For more information on Robbie’s policies or to join the debate on the future of Usdaw then visit www.robbiesegal.com or email robbie.segal@aol.com
Yours sincerely
Robbie Segal’s supporters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)