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.
Showing posts with label john hannett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john hannett. Show all posts
Monday, 28 July 2008
Appeal to Warehouse and Distribution Workers
VOTE ROBBIE (ROBINA) SEGAL
What type of General Secretary do you want?
Have there been redundancies in your depot. Have you had your terms and conditions reduced? Are you working in a new depot where the terms and conditions are not the same as the established sites?
These attacks have been going on for years and the Usdaw leaders have done nothing to challenge them. Warehouse and distribution workers are among the most powerful in this country. We control the distribution of food in Britain. Why have we not used this power?
The problem rises from the acceptance of John Hannett of the Partnership strategy. To maintain the support of the Bosses, Usdaw’s leaders must deliver a passive workforce. Is this why there is no national coordinated resistance to the bosses’ attacks against us? As a union we must prepare to fight these attacks on our wages and conditions.
In his appeal for you to vote for him, John Hannett claims:
‘I’ve recently introduced a new Conference which was held for the first in June. This will now become an annual event and I will also work hard to ensure the Union meets the many challenges in the logistics sector.’
It was over 14 months after the proposition calling for a Conference was raised at the ADM. The Conference was at least three years too late. So why does he claim ‘I’ve recently introduced a new conference’. It was not his idea as he claims.
The proposition calling for the Distribution Conference stated:
This ADM calls upon the Executive Council to organise an Annual Distribution Conference.
This is in recognition of the need for a united defence of terms and conditions of employment in the distribution sector. These have already been seriously attacked in many areas. New distribution centres are being opened, for example with far worse terms and conditions than existing sites. Companies are even calling for us to accept new starters at existing depots on worse terms and conditions. Agreements which have been negotiated over many years are being torn up and redundancies are taking place. The list is endless.
Conference believes we need a National Distribution Conference so we can organise nationally and not be left to be picked off one by one by unscrupulous greedy employers in search of ever greater profits at the expense of our members’ living standards.
So we should ask John Hannett, ‘why did you take so long to organise the Conference?’ Could it be that it is being used as part of his general secretary election campaign.
We` also learn ‘it will now become an annual event’. Is an annual meeting enough to face the challenge in the logistics sector? What about the attacks and how do we organise a national fight back. These issues must be addressed urgently.
The above statement shows what type of general secretary you will get if you vote for John Hannett.
I believe that the Conference was a first step in organising the fight back. Usdaw needs to be a union based on the democratic participation of its membership. It is not just a question of listening but fighting on behalf of its members.
Distribution and Warehouse sites are now an important part of our Union. I believe that the present Area Organiser arrangements need changing. Over the last few years, there has been a reduction in the number of officials working in the Divisions. I will restore the numbers and in the Divisions with large numbers of warehouse and distribution members I will appoint a dedicated Area Organiser.
If you want to join the fight to change Usdaw then email me at:
robbie@robbiesegal.org , visit my website www.robbiesegal.com
What type of General Secretary do you want?
Have there been redundancies in your depot. Have you had your terms and conditions reduced? Are you working in a new depot where the terms and conditions are not the same as the established sites?
These attacks have been going on for years and the Usdaw leaders have done nothing to challenge them. Warehouse and distribution workers are among the most powerful in this country. We control the distribution of food in Britain. Why have we not used this power?
The problem rises from the acceptance of John Hannett of the Partnership strategy. To maintain the support of the Bosses, Usdaw’s leaders must deliver a passive workforce. Is this why there is no national coordinated resistance to the bosses’ attacks against us? As a union we must prepare to fight these attacks on our wages and conditions.
In his appeal for you to vote for him, John Hannett claims:
‘I’ve recently introduced a new Conference which was held for the first in June. This will now become an annual event and I will also work hard to ensure the Union meets the many challenges in the logistics sector.’
It was over 14 months after the proposition calling for a Conference was raised at the ADM. The Conference was at least three years too late. So why does he claim ‘I’ve recently introduced a new conference’. It was not his idea as he claims.
The proposition calling for the Distribution Conference stated:
This ADM calls upon the Executive Council to organise an Annual Distribution Conference.
This is in recognition of the need for a united defence of terms and conditions of employment in the distribution sector. These have already been seriously attacked in many areas. New distribution centres are being opened, for example with far worse terms and conditions than existing sites. Companies are even calling for us to accept new starters at existing depots on worse terms and conditions. Agreements which have been negotiated over many years are being torn up and redundancies are taking place. The list is endless.
Conference believes we need a National Distribution Conference so we can organise nationally and not be left to be picked off one by one by unscrupulous greedy employers in search of ever greater profits at the expense of our members’ living standards.
So we should ask John Hannett, ‘why did you take so long to organise the Conference?’ Could it be that it is being used as part of his general secretary election campaign.
We` also learn ‘it will now become an annual event’. Is an annual meeting enough to face the challenge in the logistics sector? What about the attacks and how do we organise a national fight back. These issues must be addressed urgently.
The above statement shows what type of general secretary you will get if you vote for John Hannett.
I believe that the Conference was a first step in organising the fight back. Usdaw needs to be a union based on the democratic participation of its membership. It is not just a question of listening but fighting on behalf of its members.
Distribution and Warehouse sites are now an important part of our Union. I believe that the present Area Organiser arrangements need changing. Over the last few years, there has been a reduction in the number of officials working in the Divisions. I will restore the numbers and in the Divisions with large numbers of warehouse and distribution members I will appoint a dedicated Area Organiser.
If you want to join the fight to change Usdaw then email me at:
robbie@robbiesegal.org , visit my website www.robbiesegal.com
Friday, 11 July 2008
Protest at abuse of democracy in Usdaw general secretary election
Press statement – July 2008 Robbie Segal, a candidate in the election for Usdaw’s general secretary protests at the unfair and undemocratic nature of the running of the branch nomination process for Usdaw’s general secretary election.
The circular informing branches of the general secretary election contained an inaccurate endorsement for the incumbent General Secretary any other candidates in the nomination process had no method of informing the branches they were standing.Robbie states ‘With this blatantly unfair and undemocratic abuse of the election process, how can one candidate have their name circulated to the branches while all other candidates have no way of obtaining the branch secretary’s name or address? Furthermore, the union refuses to circulate any details of other candidates to union branches.
This shows how John Hannett is frightened of an open and inclusive debate on his reign as general secretary. I call on Usdaw members to support the reform of the election process and help strengthen democracy in Usdaw.’Robbie Segal protests at the use of Usdaw’s resources to support John Hannett’s bid for re-election as general secretary.
The deputy general secretary is coordinating the campaign nationally.
In the seven Usdaw Divisions the campaign is being coordinated by senior officials.
In one of the Divisions, the Divisional Officer wrote to all Area Organisers stating that they had to report to him every Friday on the progress of John Hannett’s campaign.
Area Organisers are being used as campaigners for John Hannett and have dropped off John Hannett leaflets to branches and at workplaces.
At one London branch meeting held on Tuesday 9 July, it was attended by three Area Organisers, including an Eastern Division Area Organiser who represents the North East of England division on Usdaw’s Executive Council.
Robbie asks, ‘Is this a sensible use of Usdaw official’s time? Especially since the number of Full Time Officials working in the divisions has declined while the membership has increased’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.Robbie Segal said “I challenge John Hannett to disclose the number of visits he has made to workplaces in June and intends to make in July this year compared to his visits last year (2007).”Robbie states, ‘The visits that have been arranged up and down the country are part of his electioneering campaign. I ask John Hannett to tell me how many visits he has made. I believe that Usdaw members have the right to know how their general secretary spends his time and our money.’
For information on Robbie’s campaign visit www.robbiesegal.org or ring 07776 195 563.
The circular informing branches of the general secretary election contained an inaccurate endorsement for the incumbent General Secretary any other candidates in the nomination process had no method of informing the branches they were standing.Robbie states ‘With this blatantly unfair and undemocratic abuse of the election process, how can one candidate have their name circulated to the branches while all other candidates have no way of obtaining the branch secretary’s name or address? Furthermore, the union refuses to circulate any details of other candidates to union branches.
This shows how John Hannett is frightened of an open and inclusive debate on his reign as general secretary. I call on Usdaw members to support the reform of the election process and help strengthen democracy in Usdaw.’Robbie Segal protests at the use of Usdaw’s resources to support John Hannett’s bid for re-election as general secretary.
The deputy general secretary is coordinating the campaign nationally.
In the seven Usdaw Divisions the campaign is being coordinated by senior officials.
In one of the Divisions, the Divisional Officer wrote to all Area Organisers stating that they had to report to him every Friday on the progress of John Hannett’s campaign.
Area Organisers are being used as campaigners for John Hannett and have dropped off John Hannett leaflets to branches and at workplaces.
At one London branch meeting held on Tuesday 9 July, it was attended by three Area Organisers, including an Eastern Division Area Organiser who represents the North East of England division on Usdaw’s Executive Council.
Robbie asks, ‘Is this a sensible use of Usdaw official’s time? Especially since the number of Full Time Officials working in the divisions has declined while the membership has increased’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.Robbie Segal said “I challenge John Hannett to disclose the number of visits he has made to workplaces in June and intends to make in July this year compared to his visits last year (2007).”Robbie states, ‘The visits that have been arranged up and down the country are part of his electioneering campaign. I ask John Hannett to tell me how many visits he has made. I believe that Usdaw members have the right to know how their general secretary spends his time and our money.’
For information on Robbie’s campaign visit www.robbiesegal.org or ring 07776 195 563.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
John Hannett and his pledges for Usdaw
An interview with Robbie Segal (candidate for Usdaw General Secretary) asking her to comment on the pledges made by John Hannett, her challenger for the general secretary’s post.
Listen to members and reps and act on what you tell us.
Robbie: Our members are demanding that we do something about their pay. Most of us exist on wages little higher than the government’s minimum, so if John listens why does he not launch a campaign for a decent wage. The members want and are demanding he acts on this one issue. This is the most important issue facing the majority of our members but John refuses to campaign on this matter.
Win for our members through strong and effective bargaining with employers.
Robbie: There is one major problem with Usdaw’s bargaining strategy – it‘s in a straightjacket of its own making – and that is Social Partnership. Usdaw can never use its power because it would expose the bankruptcy of partnership to the companies we are trying to organise.
John is very proud of his slogan to Win for our Members but this is based on the servicing model. My strategy is to organise so the members can win for themselves.
Be innovative with new initiatives such as Academy2, the Organising Awards, the Legal Plus helpline and the new Warehouse and Distribution Conference.
Robbie: I wonder how many of these initiatives were delayed as part of the John’s election campaign: Academy2 was discussed 2 years ago and the motion calling for the establishment of a warehouse and distribution conference was passed 14 months ago. Both of these have been only recently implemented. The changes to Legal Plus have clearly been driven by the solicitors because their business was declining. I believe the money spent on the Organising Awards could be put to better use, say by introducing scholarships to develop our activists.
Be the campaigning union with strong campaigns on Freedom From Fear, Parents and Carers, the National Minimum Wage, Lifelong Learning and Pensions.
Robbie: These campaigns have been important in putting the union on the map but our image is so low they never get the wider coverage they deserve. One of the general secretary’s roles must be to promote the union in the media and I believe this is the weak part of the present leadership campaigning strategy
Promote equality especially the need to ensure that employers adopt family friendly policies that mean flexibility is for our members’ benefits and not just employers.
Robbie: What has John done to promote equality in Usdaw? The top of the union is dominated by men. Fifty eight percent of the union are women and many of these are part time. Yet part timers cannot apply for position of officials in the Divisions. I will investigate and implement a method where part timers can apply for officer jobs in Usdaw.
Strongly lobby Government on issues that our members tell us are important – for example the recent impact of the abolition of the 10 pence tax rate.
Robbie: Usdaw has been one of the major backers of New Labour and all its reforms. Usdaw has offered no resistance to the continuous attacks against workers. As the fourth biggest union we should be opposing the attacks on education and the NHS. I would like the union to campaign on wider issues such as an emergency council house building programme to solve the crisis in the housing market.
Interviewer: Is there anything else you like to add about John Hannett’s pledges?
Robbie: Arising from this election, the key point missing from John’s pledges is respect for the members and the union. By the method he has organised this election, he has shown a complete disregard for the democratic traditions of the trade union movement. The election item appeared on the EC agenda as any other business. This never allowed the EC to reflect on such a serious matter. His appeal for nominations, a glossy printed leaflet, was out within days of the meeting, so there was time to have the election as a proper agenda item. Further, he insisted the election be conducted over the summer when we are likely to get a low turnout. Are these the actions of a confident general secretary?
Listen to members and reps and act on what you tell us.
Robbie: Our members are demanding that we do something about their pay. Most of us exist on wages little higher than the government’s minimum, so if John listens why does he not launch a campaign for a decent wage. The members want and are demanding he acts on this one issue. This is the most important issue facing the majority of our members but John refuses to campaign on this matter.
Win for our members through strong and effective bargaining with employers.
Robbie: There is one major problem with Usdaw’s bargaining strategy – it‘s in a straightjacket of its own making – and that is Social Partnership. Usdaw can never use its power because it would expose the bankruptcy of partnership to the companies we are trying to organise.
John is very proud of his slogan to Win for our Members but this is based on the servicing model. My strategy is to organise so the members can win for themselves.
Be innovative with new initiatives such as Academy2, the Organising Awards, the Legal Plus helpline and the new Warehouse and Distribution Conference.
Robbie: I wonder how many of these initiatives were delayed as part of the John’s election campaign: Academy2 was discussed 2 years ago and the motion calling for the establishment of a warehouse and distribution conference was passed 14 months ago. Both of these have been only recently implemented. The changes to Legal Plus have clearly been driven by the solicitors because their business was declining. I believe the money spent on the Organising Awards could be put to better use, say by introducing scholarships to develop our activists.
Be the campaigning union with strong campaigns on Freedom From Fear, Parents and Carers, the National Minimum Wage, Lifelong Learning and Pensions.
Robbie: These campaigns have been important in putting the union on the map but our image is so low they never get the wider coverage they deserve. One of the general secretary’s roles must be to promote the union in the media and I believe this is the weak part of the present leadership campaigning strategy
Promote equality especially the need to ensure that employers adopt family friendly policies that mean flexibility is for our members’ benefits and not just employers.
Robbie: What has John done to promote equality in Usdaw? The top of the union is dominated by men. Fifty eight percent of the union are women and many of these are part time. Yet part timers cannot apply for position of officials in the Divisions. I will investigate and implement a method where part timers can apply for officer jobs in Usdaw.
Strongly lobby Government on issues that our members tell us are important – for example the recent impact of the abolition of the 10 pence tax rate.
Robbie: Usdaw has been one of the major backers of New Labour and all its reforms. Usdaw has offered no resistance to the continuous attacks against workers. As the fourth biggest union we should be opposing the attacks on education and the NHS. I would like the union to campaign on wider issues such as an emergency council house building programme to solve the crisis in the housing market.
Interviewer: Is there anything else you like to add about John Hannett’s pledges?
Robbie: Arising from this election, the key point missing from John’s pledges is respect for the members and the union. By the method he has organised this election, he has shown a complete disregard for the democratic traditions of the trade union movement. The election item appeared on the EC agenda as any other business. This never allowed the EC to reflect on such a serious matter. His appeal for nominations, a glossy printed leaflet, was out within days of the meeting, so there was time to have the election as a proper agenda item. Further, he insisted the election be conducted over the summer when we are likely to get a low turnout. Are these the actions of a confident general secretary?
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)