Tuesday, November 18, 2008

UNISON London Regional Commitee – Calls to Nationalise the Banks and Grown Up Politics.

This morning I went to our regional committee meeting in Hugh Parry Hall, which is just around the corner from the UNISON HQ in Mabledon Place (and Camden Town Hall).

This is a business meeting of the regions elected lay representatives and the full time senior management team. My role there is as the lay regional Finance Convenor and I have to present the Finance report. Some of the stuff we discussed is confidential, other stuff I can report back on.

Good news about recruitment. It appears that the introduction of full time local area organisers is already making a difference. Early days yet, but most (not all branches) find it very difficult to run effective ongoing recruitment campaigns because they are simply overloaded with responsibilities and fire fighting emergencies. Dedicated and focused organisers are, I think, a God send to hard pressed branches.

The well received regional initiative on computer memory sticks will be extended by making sure that all new stewards who attend training will get one. Data on the stick includes links to key website addresses and templates, flyers, PowerPoint presentations for inductions, guides to producing newsletters etc. I think this is a really good initiative which is being looked at by other UNISON regions. The cost of the memory sticks is also being brought down.

On Pay – Local government NJC is with ACAS, 2.45% paid on account pending arbitration. In Scotland they have just accepted a 2 year deal of 3% and 2.5%. In Further Education members have accepted a 3.3% offer. Probation has just accepted a 2 years deal (I didn’t note details). OFSTED are undertaking a 3rd wave of industrial action short of strike action. The Meat Hygiene Service is balloting on a 3 day strike and in Health we have submitted evidence to the Pay Review body to trigger a review in cost of living.

NHS Restructuring – NHS London has started consultation on future provision of trauma centres and reconfiguration of PCTs.

Pension Governance – there will be a regional briefing in January 2009.

Service Group Liaison – A private sector seminar planned for Saturday 14 March 2009 (I must try and attend).

Race Action Plan Working Group – The Challenging Racism Project Plan will be re-launched starting with 5 branches across all service groups.

Equalities Seminar – was held on 22 October and was well received, the only criticism being that the say should be longer to enable delegates to attend more workshops.

Campaign against the Far Right – The region continues to work with both Unite against Fascism and Searchlight. It supports members in the GLA following the election of Barnbrook. Now focusing on European elections where the fascists think they can win in London and the North West.

Labour Link – working with TULO (Trade Unions Labour Liaison Organisation) also focusing on European elections, and the borough elections in 2010.

Regional Policy Day – A very good day (check this post).

Branch and Regional Structures Review – a new branch assessment process will come into effect in January 2009.

O&A Sessions in Regional Council – decisions by elected Regional Council Officers (including yours truly!) announced at start.

Next was my Finance report which today was for “noting” only. It was as usual pretty boring. When I attempted to explain the decision by the Regional Finance Team to spend £3,300 on purchasing materials for use in future strike activity, I itemised the materials bought as barricade building kits; Molotov cocktails; gas masks; hand guns, AK-47’s, portable guillotine etc – but no one was listening.

We had reports from the NEC and a discussion about the next regional Council meeting on 9 December. We then discussed the only motion received for debate at the council meeting, called “Global Financial Crisis”. There had been one other similar LOB motion CALLING, SUPPORTING and DEMANDING which had been thankfully ruled out of order for being clearly outside rule.

Our job at the regional committee was to discuss whether or not this motion should be supported and if we should recommend amendments. I was really pleased that we had a fair exchange of views and debate on this issue and in the end the right decision was made (i.e. the forces of light and reason won).

The main controversial issue (not the only one) was a call in the motion for the permanent Nationalisation of the Banks. While in the past such motions would have just been supported without comment since the silent majority of UNISON members were not represented on such committees or the few reps that did attend often felt it was pointless to argue against such nonsense since the motion would just be ignored in any case.

Today, I was pleased to see committee members argue that nationalising the banks is just meaningless words and gestures which means nothing to our members who are actually facing the consequences of the financial crisis.

I argued that nationalising the Banks is not the answer; I didn’t think that civil servants would make a better job of running Banks than the whiz-kids who have just mucked them up. Instead the major reason for the crisis was a failure of ownership and regulation. Nationalising the Banks (who the state arguably now own big chunks already) means nationalising our members pensions and insurance policies. What went wrong was that owners of capital (me and you) were not allowed to exercise our rights and responsibility of this ownership. Our money was misused and abused in the interests of short term personal bonuses by the people we employed supposedly to look after it.

One member of the committee spoke movingly about his own personal experience in the last financial crisis when he lost his home due to repossession and that this motion is just empty words which would have meant nothing to him during that painful time.

After this, we had a series of good reports from, self-organised groups, young members, sub-committees and Labour Link, but I’m all “blogged” out and can’t face any more typing.

Still, a very good meeting and many thanks to Gloria (and Conroy) for chairing it.

18 comments:

Charlie Marks said...

Hang on. The banks have been part-nationalised for the benefit of their shareholders. Credit is hard to come by for small firms - the govt wants the nationalised banks to increase lending, but at the same time insists on continued comerical operations.

If a call for nationalisatio is meaningless, why bother opposing it? Is it because you are against the historic goal of the labour movement? I suspect there's a lot of the liberal democrats left in you...

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

What historic goal? As dear old Harold said the Brtish Labour movement (Party) owed more to Methodism than Marx.

Even Clause 4 did not call for the nationalisation of the Banks. (Implied maybe).

Anonymous said...

I am gobsmacked!

UNISON Greater London Region on the road to sanity?

Keep up the good work.

Andrew

Charlie Marks said...

I gather the call was not to nationalise deposits, but the institutions. So what's the problem? Bank shares are worth little these days - so it'd hardly be taking from pension funds.

How can there be a fundamental and irreversable shift in power to working people and their families if they have no democratic control over the banks?

Without democratic control, the banksters can continue to export capital overseas, refuse credit for small firms, and hand out massive bonuses for those at the top whilst laying off thousands of bank staff.

Even the liberal democrats are calling for a government bank! We need a financial health service to save our economy, John.

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Sorry this reply is late. Who owns the banks? We do, not the rich individuals and families that once did. Who relies on bank dividends? Our Pensions and insurance policies. You are right to call for change. I want the financial institutions to be more democratic, but I don’t want the State or Workers committees to decide whether or not I can have an overdraft. That’s been tried and failed.

What we need is to act as responsible owners of capital. This is our money and if we had greater control that I am convinced that we would not be in the mess we are in now. The State rightly is intervening to get things going again but once we are out of the mire we need better regulated and transparent financial institutions which are run for the benefit of its owners not its executives and managers. Regulations are important but not enough by itself. The only long term solution is citizen ownership where we have rights and are able to exercise our responsibilities. As Marx didn’t put it – capital stewardship is needed to save capitalism from the seeds of its own destruction.

Charlie Marks said...

" I don’t want the State or Workers committees to decide whether or not I can have an overdraft. That’s been tried and failed."

You mean, they turned you down. ;-)

"As Marx didn’t put it – capital stewardship is needed to save capitalism from the seeds of its own destruction."

An interesting perspective (reminds me of free marketer Milton Friedman's assertion that the workers were capitalists and we have pension-fund socialism), but we might ask, why we are not able to excerise control over our capital in the first place? Does anyone benefit from our inability to control our capital?

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
1. True - the dirty rotten B........s - what was wrong with asking for a free workers beer overdraft?

2. Friedman’s assertions are essentially inadequate (or I think tongue in check in the first place) for the same reason you suggest. It’s all about the practical exercise of power.
Yes, in theory there can be pension fund socialism but it is unfairly and wrongly suppressed in a somewhat similar way as the pre-civil rights American South. We have powers in theory if not in practice.

In the UK we could (in theory) insist on the election of “Labour friendly” directors to the boards of companies. It would be perfectly legal. Now - pick yourselves up from the floor. It would make a change after all from “bonus friendly” directors?

Without being too condescending and full of ourselves, we need our own capital stewardship “Martin Luther King”.

Charlie Marks said...

"Yes, in theory there can be pension fund socialism but it is unfairly and wrongly suppressed in a somewhat similar way as the pre-civil rights American South. We have powers in theory if not in practice."

But how is the theoretical not able to become possible? Is there a particular group of people who benefit?

Happily siince this wee discussion started, it has been revealed that the "nuclear option" of total nationalisation of the banks is being considered by the government (in the interest of SMEs, rather than employees). Hardly as ridiculous a notion as you made out in your post...

BTW, I believe the words "distribution and exchange" were added to the orginal Clause 4 in 1928 in reference to common ownership of the banking sector.

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
It is able to become possible. Almost the entire UK/European Labour movement was asleep on this issue for far too long. The particular groups of people are workers and small investors (usually the same).
I will cheer the Bang of England and Gordon on if they think it necessary to nationalise the Banks if it is necessary to save the economy. However, the real difference between us is that I would expect it only to be temporary and for the Banks to eventually be returned to the market (after the taxpayers have realised a hefty profit) and for them to be better regulated by Government and then run by managers responsive and controlled by its real owners(me, you and everyone).
I think that the lack of any specific commitment to common ownership of the banks or anything else in clause 4 was political fudge that New Labour would have been proud of.

Charlie Marks said...

You say of any banking sector nationalisation that you "expect it only to be temporary and for the Banks to eventually be returned to the market".

But is this something you would desire?

Would it not be better for the banking sector to be run for the benefit of the people of this country, that is to say, not focused on maximising profit - in the manner of the National Health Service?

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

We've been down this road before. It just doesn't work. In the same way that the private sector cannot provide high equality health care and eduction for all, we shouldn't fool ourselves that we can run Banks like the NHS. The private sector is good (on the whole) at some things, the public sector is good (on the whole)at other things. Regulate and let real owners take their ownership rights and responsibilities. A workers committee or State? Nope.

Charlie Marks said...

"we shouldn't fool ourselves that we can run Banks like the NHS"

Well, we could delay repossessions, prevent small businesses being walloped with massive interest rates, stop the dodgy bank charges...

If the discourse of workers and state is so horrible to you, look at the financial institutions that have prospered in this crisis: the mutual sector - building societies and the Co-op bank. These are democratic institutions, how have they failed?

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Good point but the mutual sector works for personal savers and individual mortgagees. By and large not for SME and larger businesses. There is even logic behind this I think. Mutuals should lend to individuals and collectives by their very nature rather than entrepreneurs and PLC’s?

If there was good governance and regulation then you could prevent dodgy practices without state control. Which frankly (hardly) no one wants in the long term. It's not what we should be doing.

Charlie Marks said...

We now own most of the banking sector - as taxpayers. Surely the logic of capital stewardship would be to call for us to have ownership rights - just as much if our ownership is through the government we fund with our taxes, as our pensions and savings.

I'm thinking along the lines of, making sure lending is not just on a commercial basis but that other social objectives are realised - for example, human rights, environmental protections, etc. We might also wish that banks do not lend to companies which outsource jobs to countries with lower wages and lax labour laws.

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
The government doesn’t “own” the shares in a Capital Stewardship sense; taxpayers (or rather gilt buyers in this case) have financed its purchase as a temporary “stop gap” to deal with a particular problem then to return ownership to the market (us).

I expect the State to get a hefty profit out of this in the long term.

Governments are pretty naf at running banks and picking winners. Regulation and giving owners responsibility for ensuring that the Banks are run properly in the future is the key.

Companies which are properly governed, who treat their workers fairly and safely, do not destroy the environment, do not employ child labour, bribe local officials etc - in the long run produce superior investment returns. Win, win.

Charlie Marks said...

"I expect the State to get a hefty profit out of this in the long term."

Again, is this really desirable if it means that in the short term the banks are more interested in recapitalising than extending credit at a time when the economy is contracting? If it means that the lack of credit causes more job losses, more repossessions, etc?

"Companies which are properly governed, who treat their workers fairly and safely, do not destroy the environment, do not employ child labour, bribe local officials etc - in the long run produce superior investment returns. Win, win."

But as we've seen with the joint-stock corporation, long term thinking isn't a priority... Is it not the case that, as the purpose of the vast majority of companies is to maximise profits - and this necessitates off-shore outsourcing, union busting, cutting corners on safety, bribery, and pollution?

If capitalism was based on profits being made by protecting workers and the environment, we would never have never started this great movement of ours!

Charlie Marks said...

I must add something on your definition of the market as being ownership by "us".

The private banks aren't co-operatives, John. It isn't "one person, one vote".

With this attitude - a million miles from the traditions of the Labour movement - you'll go far in New Labour, I'm sure...

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Yes in the long term - not the sort term obviously. Once confidence returns the government should make a speculative killing since Bank shares are so absolutely low.

I think you are simply wrong in assuming that successful long term companies maximise profits by short term “cutting corners”. The New Capitalist stuff I think is pretty convincing on the superior returns that active long term investors receive. It also makes sense that on the whole, well run responsible companies produce superior long term returns. I’ve not seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

In the past the ownership of Capital was in the hands of a small number of wealthy families and individuals not the “masses” (hey - I don’t think I have ever used that term before!)
With regard to your 2nd point about markets, well, we do own the market even before the crisis. The issue is exercising our ownership rights. You are right it isn’t one man one vote, but collectively we have those rights. In the UK if we had the same organisation as the US we could help vote in Company directors, who will not be our creatures, but would believe in and be held to account for running companies in the interests of shareholders not themselves. This in itself would be a huge advance.
...and anyway what’s wrong with going far (whatever that means) in the political arm and family of our great trade union movement!