|
|
Worker & Community Struggles and Protests
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
NIPSA General Council Elections national |
worker & community struggles and protests |
opinion/analysis
 Thursday February 21, 2008 13:48 by observer
 What No fanfare. I'm suprised at the lack of comment. I would have assumed as Time for Change are simply a left wing election vehicle they would have been crowing proudly at their excellent election result in the NIPSA GC election. NIPSA Unity on the other hand I would expect to be more pragmatic and modest. Let's face it they do have a lot to be modest about!! For years Time for Change have been accused of being only interested in elections. To counter this (in their eyes) cynical approach Reclaim Your Union which this year morphed into NIPSA Unity made a concerted effort to win control of the General Council. At a time when many TFC activists were up to their eyes in the classroom assistants dispute it seemed the NIPSA unity candidates would have a distinct advantage. However it seems the NIPSA membership recognised and appreciated the vast difference between talk and substance. While NIPSA Unity produced a fine looking website with a grand manifesto talking of making pragmatic interventions that will cure all our ills. TFC activists were out on picket lines and demonstrations. They were lobbying MLAs organising meetings. It would seem this is what is expected and required. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (107 of 107)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107The membership have certainly made their feelings overwhelmingly clear.Around 90% of them elected not to vote.In the lottery that ensued amongst the handful that did bother,the externally contolled lunatic fringe group which styles itself "Time for change'(isn't that a Tory slogan?)triumphed by a stunning majority of one over the independents-exactly the same arithmetic that pertains at present.So-no change there,then.t
TFC do not have a majority of one over the independents at present, that is a nonsense.
Next year they will have.
I think that is a change. Some surprising names elected, and even more surprising those not elected.
At least those who bothered to vote could tell the difference between action and words.
the externally contolled lunatic fringe group which styles itself "Time for change' writes Plain John Smith.
Just as well it is only a "fringe". The President, Deputy President, Chair of CSGE, Chair of P and O Group, Vice-Chairs of these groups, the Hon Treasurer and the entire Disputes Committee belong to this group. Can you imagine if they were not a fringe?
A disappointing poll/turn out as always, something needs to be done to engage the membership. Perhaps the "fringe" will manage it next year.
By the way, am I being "externally controlled?" That would be news to many, probably welcome news and all. "Patrique controlled", sighs of relief all round.
DON CORLEONE:Back to the abacus,fellow.The present "TFC" 13-strong majority consists of Arkinson,Booth,Collins,Crawford,Flanagan,Gates,Killen,Lynn,Morgan,Murdock,Mulholland,Reid and Toal.Next year Booth and Crawford are out,Brownlee and McGinley in-same difference,a 13-12 majority over the independents.Time for no change whatsoever,then.
PATRIQUE:Your current status in this group is that of 'useful fool';you will be courted just as long as you do what you are told.You were not meant to get elected-the plan was for you to do the donkey work in getting the CSA vote out for the elite,not get on yourself and in so doing shunt a Socialist Party member into oblivion.The Socialist Party,a nasty and politically unelectable little sect which spends most of its time attacking and abusing trade unionists,charges its disciples with setting up externally controlled caucuses(such as "TFC")within unions as all political parties are now wise to their entryist tactics and give them short shrift.Be aware-a mind of your own is neither required nor tolerated.I have already heard you described as a 'maverick' and a 'blow-in'by your new "friends".
Thanks Bran Broth, I am relieved. I was once a fool, now I am a useful fool. That is gratifying, I did not realise I had made so much progress.
As for the plan that I was not to be elected, the easiest way to do that would have been not to vote for me. Are you suggesting my allies forgot the plan, or forgot that by voting for me there was a chance I could be elected. Obviously they were confused, as Colette Flanagan was elected as well, and William Ward came within seven votes.
And thank you again for the compliment, we did indeed get out the CSA vote.
And I love to be controlled, all that ranting is mere attention seeking, a cry to be cuddled and loved.
Bran Broth got you. I know who you are. Alastair Campbell? Right.
You see in last years election RTY and allies won 13 seats, TFC 12. Someone stepped down during the year, and Mr Crawford I believe was the sub.
So there was a change in the election result.
And how did you know I bought membership services an abacus for Christmas?
There was in fact a hung Parliament last year,with both the independents and the controlled sector getting twelve elected-the additional member making up the 25 did not ally herself with either group but simply called issues as she saw them.At one point an elected member(Marie Vaughan,on the "TFC "slate as a consequence of being in the Trot-controlled Health sector rather than any lack of intelligence)resigned due to ill health and Brian Crawford came off the bench to take her place.
This did not alter the arithmetic,which was still 12-12-1.What gave the controlled sector the majority was the subsequent resignation of Katrina Cooley,again due to ill health(like Marie,Katrina did not attend any General Council meetings during the year prior to her resignation). Next sub on was the redoubtable Ricki Reid,thus giving the controlled sector the clear overall majority of one correctly identified by Mr.Broth above.It would indeed appear to be time for no change whatsoever.How indescribably tedious.
Would the trot controlled Health Sector be a part of the union that is growing at a rate of knots. Could it possible be because of the many activist that are actively recruiting to branches. Also of the 5 health branches 3 are TFC and 2 are independent. I am sure the secretary of the Southern Board would be delighted to be told he is a Trot or controlled by them.
I see some things havent changed,Nipsa still has its problems with egos.Looking at some of the names that got elected I am just glad to be out of it.
I've been a nipsa activist for a few years and would offer the following advice to all the newly elected entryi..sorry General Council members
1) Keep your personal politics out of union business.The members prefer it that way.Most people(thankfully) ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE socialists.They just want a decent job with a living wage to support their families-not a revolution.
2) Don't bore everyone senseless with leftist rhetoric,either at conference or when talking to members generally.Just get on with the job of representing their interests.
3)Remember the old trade union slogan-"Unity is Strength".There should only be ONE nipsa.I realise that there will always be factions seeking power in any organisation,but a divided union is a weak one.At the end of the day,whether youre tfc,unity or whatever,we are all fighting the same fight-to protect the public sector and save our jobs.
4)Forget political fund ballots ,motions calling for particular forms of government or any thing else designed to further the cause of this or that left wing grouping.You might get these things passed at conference but you can rest assured they won't be popular with most members .Our membership is growing and we want to keep it that way.
The alternative is a weak union with falling membership-which is what we will end up with if we don't consign marxism and all the failed ideologies of the past to the proverbial historical dustbin
Some very true comments,Auntie,but most if not all unions have their problems with daft factions. Nipsa is once again split down the middle between the fundamentalists and the pragmatists,not unlike the DUP with its church wing and its secular wing-except that there is no clear winner yet.A majority of one is effectively worthless,especially now there are so many(largely unnecessary)General Council meetings,none of which ever attract a full attendance.
A further complicating factor for the fundamentalists is that their most shrill and dogmatic element(the Socialist Party and its lackeys)no longer exercises complete control over its less certifiably barking allies,most of whom are based in DSD and some of whom at least have been embarrassed and irritated by the openly sectarian nature of the parent body's divisive and abusive antics.It remains to be seen whether this group has the balls to assert itself.
All of which is all very interesting,but only if you are one of the handful of members who actually gives a shit.Most of Nipsa's members could not name a member of the General Council for a million pounds.They neither know nor care who runs the union and regard the Machiavellian machinations of the factions as childish and irrelevant-not unlike two bald men fighting over a comb.A 12.5% turn-out in the elections tells its own tale(this is not unique to Nipsa-all unions have this problem of very low and diminishing turn-outs in such elections)and should serve as a salutary warning when the sectarian wing starts mouthing off about "democracy" and suchlike.The sole reason such elements enthuse about elections for everything is the sure knowledge that they are anything but democratic,and this presents certain opportunities.
Auntie Trot,
Conference cannot introduce a Political Fund, only the members can do that. The motion, if passed, allows the members to have a ballot on it. And as you rightly say, the members are the people being represented, or should be.
So the members decide on a Political Fund. The employers already have them.
I have no love for the left but for once Patrique is right. Only those determined to stop the members being heard will vote against the political fund motion. Only the ordinary members can decide this by ballot, so let them be heard.
Do not let the Socialist Party or others stop the members from being heard. Support the political fund motion, and let the ordinary members be heard. These people claim to represent the members, this is their chance to prove it.
The Socialist Party supports the right of members to be heard and supports the establishment of the political fund - and have done for 30 years.
30 years,eh,Jolly?That should in itself convey a message to all but the most wilfully obtuse but in case it doesn't,get this:
1.
87.5% of the members elected not to be heard in the appointment of this year's General Council.Why do you imagine that they,or indeed the 12.5% that did vote,would wish to delegate responsibility for doling out their hard-earned cash to any political party to 25 people,elected by a rump,whom most have never heard of,never mind trust?
2.
Any individual member who wishes to give money to a political party or sect(there may be a couple of dozen within Nipsa,who knows)can do so themselves-that way they know it's going to one they support,rather than one they despise.It also means that members will not feel compelled to resign en masse in protest at union money being misappropriated,as they would see it,by clowns on behalf of idiots.
3.
Don't hold your breath waiting for turkeys to vote for Christmas.The chances of your lot ever screwing a penny piece out of Nipsa with the agreement of the overall membership are zero.So-wise up,there's a good fellow.
4.
Oh-and have a nice day,y'all,why don'tcha!
Does the above mean that you support the Conference motion, and agree that the members should be allowed to decide this matter?
PWD can no doubt speak for him/herself but I get the feeling he/she does not support the motion. The question arises if the members reject the motion will it be put back on the Agenda next year?
History would suggest that this will be repeated ad infinitum irrespective of how many times the members say no.It costs tens of thousands of pounds,I understand,to run a ballot of all members(which the vast majority of members file in the nearest bin).My view is that this money needs to be spent on something useful,like employing more people to cope with the ever growing workloads,rather than poured down the plug-hole.If the Socialist Party is in need of money,why doesn't it ask for larger donations from some of its exceedingly and embarrassingly wealthy champagne "socialist" representatives on the nipsa general council?They can well afford it and it would spare them the charges of dishonesty that are already current in many branches.Alternatively,maybe they should try and come up with some electable policies that would help dispel the almost universal contempt in which they are held by the electorate as a whole and ordinary working class people in particular.
Under the TULR © 1992 any political expenditure must come from a separate fund of the union, the political fund. To lawfully establish a political fund a union must first pass a “political resolution” in a ballot of members. The result of a political resolution is to confirm that political objectives are part of the union’s objectives.
Following a successful ballot, overseen by the Certification Officer, the union must establish rules for the running of the fund. The Certification Officer will also check that these rules comply with the law on political funds.
Political Resolutions last for ten years, after which the union must re-ballot the members.
Any union member may opt out of the political fund, and refuse to contribute. Unions must inform their members of this clause. There must be no disadvantage to members who chose this option, although they can be excluded from decisions which deal purely with the management of the levy.
As you can see, if the unions accept the political fund, it has to be done again in ten years. There are more safeguards in the law on political funds than the Titanic enjoyed.
And the political fund is used to lobby, as employers do, and given that NIPSA members are all employed by the Government (nearly all) you cannot get more political than that.
Speaking personally, if I was to lobby a political party in N.Ireland to try to achieve something, I think I would lobby the DUP or Sinn Fein. No disrespect to the Socialist party, but they do not have a lot of clout.
So hopefully those above who would lobby the Socialist Party will not be in charge of the fund. We should let people with a bit of political nous do that.
In a six month period recently I achieved loads of improvements in my estate by lobbying Willie McCrea on one matter, Sinn Fein on another, and David Ford on another.
That's how it works. You shop around.
Unless your name is McCarthy.
My name actually is McCarthy but its Sean not Joe,right.I have never had any problem lobbying all the political reps in my area including SF,SDLP,DUP,UUP and Aliance on community issues,on personal stuff I go to SF because they get things done quicker.This isnt rocket sciense and I dont need money from my union to do it.Neither does my union need money to do it,they have been doing this sort of work for years with no problems.There is no call for a political fund.
My branch does not trust the NIPSA trots,their only in unions to use them and I think their definately trying to milk the members with this.Their party will preform any number of contortions to fit in with political objects which they will write themselves because they control the NIPSA general counsel.So forget about people with political nous controlling the political fund,as things stand they will and they will trouser our members cash.They will never get any money from me and my branch will not support this,its not honest and its not needed.
It is unlikely to be quite that blatant,Sean.What the Trots will do will as always be determined by the orders of their masters outside Nipsa but we suspect they will try to fudge the issue by claiming that the money will go on"campaigns"-these will then be linked to Nipsa campaigns and policies which the SP will piggyback onto in their inimitable parasitic manner.
They are also likely to see these activities as an opportunity to agitate against the real political parties using as a smokescreen the name of Nipsa,an organisation with over 44,000 members as opposed to the SP's 85-this despite the fact that only a tiny number of Nipsa members are likely to "opt in"(in N.Ireland you do have to "opt in",unlike GB where you are automatically in unless you"opt out")and less still are likely to have any time for the SP.
All of which is likely to be highly counter-productive when we have to do business with the real parties on serious issues.If they conclude,understandably,that the union is being used as a catspaw by a lunatic fringe grouping with no political or community credibility,it is inevitable that we will be shunned and marginalised.
Splendid isolation is where we would be heading with this,were it to get through.The 'Cold Light Of Day'Group,however,believes that it will not and that the Trots have misunderstood the legislation and the amount of hoops they would have to jump through.We are not ,we believe,on the road to nowhere just yet.
Why has this poisonous little group been allowed to take over nipsa? I left nipsa because of them and I know I'm not the only one.I would never jeopardise the progress I have made with my Special Needs children to please them and a lot of classroom assistants who did are now very angry,they were marched to the top of the hill for nothing and now it turns out that over half of all classroom assistants were not even in a union.If you have a political fund the members should demand that it is spent on campaigning against the socialist party and showing them up,they are a disgrace the way they treat their own members and other unions and they destroy everything they touch.
The above is clearly a wind up, and a poor one.
And if your BRANCH vote against Sean, you are giving two fingers to every member in the union. Now you claim the SP do this. Are you a member?
Let the members decide, what are you afraid off?
It is possible that there may be more than one wind-up on this thread,my irascible friend.For instance,I have never heard of the "Association of Jedi Knights(Cultra branch)". I knew there was a Bangor branch,because I used to be in it,but I have never heard tell of one in Cultra.As for people with names like "Phlegmatic White Dwarf","Patrique","Auntie Trot","Stroppy","Bran Broth","John Smith",etc-like,get outta here,you CANNOT be serious!
None of this is of any consequence as long as reasonable points are being made,which I think they are.The point is surely the debate,though I could hazard an educated guess at the identity of some of the protagonists. I am content to let the object of your ire("Sean McCarthy"?)speak for him/herself,hopefully more gramatically than the last time,but for my part I am not afraid of anything.Like everyone else on the political Left,I dislike and distrust the Socialist Party and I believe all of their hobby-horses in Nipsa are self-serving and wasteful in the extreme.A ballot for a political fund would be a waste of money;very few would bother to vote,fewer still would contribute if there was one and we have never needed one to do the things we do.I think John Smith above has also got it right in surmising that the SP do not understand how difficult it would be to siphon this money off for their own selfish purposes.
Likewise,getting Branch funds is all about the big SP controlled branches spending members' money on SP projects and the election of some (but not all) officials is about using a Tory policy to promote the profile(and,they hope,also the bank balances) of Trots and other dullards who follow them;the reason these people do not apply for these jobs at present is because they do not meet the criteria to make the interview shortlist,so why should we open the floodgates to candidates who do not possess the knowledge or experience to do the jobs?You would not choose a doctor or dentist like this nor would we or the members we represent tolerate such Conservative Party,anti-worker,anti-trade union policies being imposed on us in our workplaces.If the workers strike over this,as is rumoured,they will have my unequivocal support as well as half the General Council and most of the membership.If the strike happens at Conference,it will be interesting to see who amongst the Thatcherite/Trotskyite ranks will go scab and try to cross the picket lines.
The above post is wonderful, including the swear words like "strike" and all that. People manning the barricades, raising the flag of liberty, great stuff. Get Johnny Depp to play the lead.
Branch 8 have always supported branch funds on the grounds that SMALL branches need them. We are a big branch, 851 members today (not one of whom is in the SP) but we do not need funds as we usually have access to photo-copying and printing which small branches do not.
And many people quote Tory anti-union laws without understanding them. Does anyone seriously think (apart from Joe McCarthy) that when a union has branch funds one just phones them up and says "here, send us down 10K quick, Cheltenham is on?" It does not work like that.
I also note that the Duck of Richlieu does not "trust" the membership.
Surely photocopying,printing etc are covered by the Facilities Agreement,in the NICS anyway?In the PO Group there are other arrangements that have worked well to date despite the demonstrable lies that are peddled by the usual people every year at conference.It may be advisable to reflect on two things,namely the widespread prevalence of fraud in unions where there are branch fund arrangements and the single source of the identity of the micro-group which has agitated within unions for them.I do not know if the two are in any way related.
One may also question whether this is a wise use of resources given the massive black hole in the union's pension fund that has to be plugged within the next three years,pressures on staffing and a situation whereby the union was actually in deficit recently through money spent on the classroom assistants dispute.
Finally,I cannot speak for the Duck,but as a pedant would note that the nuance of the inverted commas around "trust" keeps the statement from being actionable.The sevices of his legal representative,Ms H Mills-McCartney,will therefore presumably not be required.
And the GMB, to which the NIPSA staff belong, elect full time officials. Are you suggesting we follow precedent here, and learn from other unions, or does that only apply to union funds?
Many areas of the NICS by the way do not have a facilities agreement.
What the GMB does or doesn't do internally is irrelevant to the forthcoming industrial dispute and none of our business,so there is no mileage in trying to demonise them or any other union(though it is a matter of record that Nipsa HQ staff have voted to leave GMB and are likely to be in another union shortly).The dispute that is looming will be with Nipsa so a conflict of interest would only arise if our people at HQ were ordinary Nipsa members,which they are not.Should be interesting at Conference-it will certainly sort the genuine trade unionists,staunch at all times in the integrity of their support for workers in struggle,from the scabs and hypocrites.Already the media are sniffing......
Another interesting oddity about GMB,incidentally,is the fact that their full-time officials are also GMB members.Should we also learn from them on that administrative nicety-eh,comrades?
Hey,Brazzi-whaddya mean there ain't no facilities agreement in parts of da Civil Soifice?There's a central agreement,sucker-dat means it applies to everybody!
I must spring to the defense of Luca Brazzi and point out that the CSA do not have a facilities agreement.
And could I politely ask, what is all this about conference and the GMB?
I would not of course presume to speak for Mr Soprano or any of his associates but I think what he is referring to is the CSC from the early Eighties(still extant)that spells out minimum provisions including time off for reps,etc. This would cover all Depts,including DSD,of which I believe CSA is part and some Depts even have better,more refined versions of this.
I am not sure what the Duck is on about concerning the other matter and I would not pay too much attention to the rumours that are flying about unless they can be formally commented on by HQ or General Council sources.So-I suppose it's a matter of "watch this space....."
Do you mean that NIPSA staff are not NIPSA members? Why not? Why would they be members of another union? If other unions staff are members of their own union then so should ours I would think. Please enlighten me.
The NIPSA officials are members of the GMB. Strange that.
These officials are employed by you, but are in a different union. If they were elected, they would be in NIPSA.
Why then is the General Secretary,who is elected(he had to be,to satisfy Tory legislation which NIPSA continues to oppose) a member of GMB? The answer is in the NIPSA Constitution,which confirms that officials are honorary members-a technicality to cover legal action against a combination of officials and members,in reality,so they can have the same representation. They are not ordinary members(the mainstream membership group) and they require an independent trade union to negotiate their terms and conditions,etc. Otherwise you could have a General Council consisting entirely of officials negotiating such matters with themselves.On the plus side,it would certainly raise the standard of the GC.Maybe not such a bad idea after all!
Finally,could the imposter calling himself the" Duke de Richlieu" kindly cease this charade.The correct spelling for my associate is "Duc de Richleau",as everyone with the slightest interest in combating Satanism and engaging in conflict on astral plains is well aware.Nor is the Duc in any way associated with any left wing grouping,as this charlatan claims to be.
Nice to know the General Secretary is a union man.
When was the last time NIPSA actively opposed Tory legislation?
The Tories haven't actually made any in the 21st century. A small matter of the electorate not letting them.
No matter,nipsa should make them an offer they can't refuse for when they get back in. Let's hire a fleet of buses to 30 Millbank,wave placards,chant slogans and shriek abuse.That works,doesn't it?
I admire your pluck, Jack, drinking in a pub called the "Nag's Head" after your terrible experience. From your post am I to understand that Tony Blair was Labour? The sooner the Tories get back the better.
However someone posted that "NIPSA continued to oppose Tory Legislation", mostly passed by John Major, but that was in the early nineties. I have been involved with NIPSA since then, on the legal side, and cannot remember much opposition. Back in the 70s in GB in more militant times they opposed the Labour Court by simply not recognising it. Not much sign of that union solidarity around these days, mostly due to Mr Major's laws I suppose. To his credit, he managed to get Mrs T the blame for most of them.
Yep,back in the 70s things were different all right,it was like another planet. Lots of pig-ignorant chauvinism,bad hair days,hilarious fashions,chain smoking cretins,unions pissing off their own members through self-defeating belligerent posturing,vacuous Trotskyite dogmatists boring all within earshot half to death with their earnest cliched rhetoric,etc,etc........or is that the present day General Council I'm thinking of? Hard to tell,really. Who needs a time machine..........?
The above post suggesting that General Council, of "Dirty Dozen" fame, consists of raving Trots and such is an outrage similar to saying there is a socialist government in power at Westminster at present. Amanda, Michael, Wilma, Kate etc etc etc etc will be horrified to be described as such.
And next years only has three left wingers on it.
The use of the term 'raving' to describe Trots is superfluous,just as there is no need to describe water as 'wet'. I note that an earlier post
by 'The Pedant' names the General Council,this year and next; this confirms that the majority in both instances are from the
fundamentalist wing,which can be accurately if unkindly identified in the manner employed above by Mr.Fontane.
The last sentence above is somewhat mystifying.Do you equate "left wingers" with Trots? If you do,you'll not get many takers for that view
either within or outside Nipsa. Also,you'd be wrong numerically. The following six in the incoming Council are fully paid-up Party puppets-
Gates,Mulholland,Killen,Lynn,Collins and Booth (the latter will come off the bench to replace Brownlee,who is going to a job at HQ).
Just because you are a member of the SP does not necessarily make you a leftie. I would have trouble describing some of those mentioned as "lefties".
And I have frisked and interrogated a thousand young punks and lefties so know what I am talking about. Mind you these days I am getting grouchy, and old.
Nothing wrong with being either.These jokers are not lefties-they support Tory policies like the election of officials and cutting workers' wages."Lefties",my arse!
Given that someone in Labour got confused and decided to tax the poor to help the rich, we are probably better of being "Tories". Being a tory nowadays probably means left wing, compared to the ruling party.
Earlier in this thread someone talked about the qualifications a full time official needs. Anyone any idea what those qualifications are?
And who are the mysterious three lefties?
No idea re lefties-does not apply to Trots,with their "instant recall" philosophy(ie sacking workers for not being Trots).Officials are generally'qualified' by working their way up the ranks over a long period of time,I guess.
The "left" these days consists mainly of the champagne socialist variety who rob the poor to pay for their luxurious lifestyles e.g the likes of John Prescott who makes us taxpaying mugs fork out for his groceries,nevermind nu-labour's complicity with the tories in the systematic destruction of British industry by deregulating and privatising anything that moves(with the exception of failing banks ).
The so-called left in ireland are no better-nothing but a bunch of self-serving careerists in fact,and that includes the union bosses whose espousal of marxist rhetoric sits awkwardly with their exceedingly comfortable standard of living(compared to most of us plebes who are finding it increasingly difficult to pay our bills and support our families on our meagre wages).
It is without a doubt "time for change" and a radical one at that when one considers the problems we face today-the credit crisis, peak oil,the destruction of national economies and the industries on which they were based by the big players in the globalised economy-but the solution to thes e problems will not be found on the left or in the policies and practices of unions which are no longer truly representative of their rapidly declining membership.
There is some truth in this viewpoint.The Nipsa General Council is certainly not representative of the membership,the vast majority did not vote and most are fed up with wealthy Trotskyites with more money than sense banging on about 'ordinary working class people'and suchlike pious platitudes,they can afford strikes a lot easier than most of us.
As for politics and politicians,most people do vote in that sphere so if one doesn't like what's happening,best thing is to join a party with a bit of clout and try to do something useful.Or,an influential independent think-tank such as the 'Cold Light Of Day'Group.
Having read the above two posts thank goodness someone submitted a motion to conference warning of the danger of union busters.
Perhaps a motion on raising education levels may not have gone amiss, education in industrial relations that is.
Obviously the two posters above work for some powerful multi-national as union busters, and are extremely well paid. But surely anyone can see through the nonsense they pedal.
The fact that no-one votes is the fault of General Council, because they are useless? Perhaps they are useless, in your opinion, because no-one votes. Not voting is the same as voting for everyone, if you think about it. How many people have stood boasting "I never vote because the same people get in all the time" without realising that the reason they get in all the time is because the idiot boaster did not vote.
As for Trots earning vast sums of money, in NIPSA I see no sign of it. As for John Prescott being on the left, I am saddened that some fools could believe such a thing.
And no harm in earning loads of money, like footballers, pop stars, and business people as long as you are prepared to contribute to a fairer society. In the USA the closest you get to a "leftie" is Ralph Nadar, a multi millionaire who hopes to put his wealth to creating a better society.
So, beware of the union busters. As for the statement "Can most afford to go on strike" this illustrates a warped mindset. Striking is not about being able to afford going on strike, rather it is all about not being able to afford NOT to go on strike. If you never strike, you will always be on rubbish wages, employers are rarely generous types. If it wasn't for the unions you would all still be working for a lot less, without breaks, holidays or insurance.
But maybe you are better of believing the bosses and the wealthy in that unions are "evil". I am sure that will help to improve your wages and conditions.
Give me a pint of whatever he's on,quick.Feeling better after that rant,then,Clem?Good,then let us begin.
It would be entertaining indeed to visualise the authors attacked in the above posts as sinister agents of some powerful multi-national with nothing better to do than monkey about on the internet but this strains credulity somewhat.Especially for the 'Cold Light Of Day' crowd who are largely unknown outside the confines of the Errigle Inn(yes,'John Smith',you've been rumbled!Why don't you and your group stand for the General Council yourselves if you're so interested)?
There is nothing fishy about what these two conflicting authors have said-it can be composited thus:
(a)The vast majority of NIPSA members choose not to vote for their General Council.True,mostly because they have never heard of any of the candidates or simply do not care.Unless you are an active member,and few are,this is understandable.
(b)Trotskyist elements are viewed as careerist,self-serving,hypocritical and affluent beyond the realms of those whom they pretend to be concerned about.So?Water is wet,as someone said earlier on this thread.
(c)'Left' politicians are on the take.Quite so,and bears defecate in the woods.Show me a politician who doesn't put no.1 first.We expect it of them,doesn't mean we won't vote for them in elections if they're better than the alternatives.And most people do vote in political elections,that is a correct assertion.
(d)Strikes,eh?An emotive subject,it would appear.For NIPSA members they have always failed,ie delivered nothing,but a lot of people will still support this expensive form of gesture politics as a last resort if self-interest is under severe enough threat.Up to a point,of course-people tend to make their own judgements as to what extent they will go,it's largely economic rather than ideological pressures that inform such decisions.
Any problems with that translation,Clem? Who do you think has contributed more to a fairer society,by the way-John Terry,Bryan Ferry or the average manager of a hedge fund?
Following this debate as I sit in Washington DC, appalled by the fact that customers are expected to pay the wages of staff in restaurants and such by tipping.
Now no-one tips Civil Servants, so someone else is going to have to pay the wages. The wages are so bad that people cannot afford to go on strike. If the wages were excellent, there would be no talk of a strike.
So the simple answer is an all out strike by 22,000 Civil Servants who would win easily after a week, if not sooner, as people began to realise that there is not a lot you can achieve or do in N.Ireland without civil servants being involved. Now this would require total support. If you are not prepared to strike, well stop complaining about the wages, and stop blaming everything on the leaders. A union is as strong as its members, stop sitting back and expecting a few people to do all for you, it is never going to happen.
The same with voting in general council elections. If you do not vote you have no voice so stop complaining because you, the non-voter, are to blame for whatever general council does, by not voting you elect the same people time after time after time.
So having insulted 89% of the membership, the non-voters, will I be elected next year? The sad thing is the same 89% will not realise I have insulted them. So you see I try to get people involved, get them to use their vote. If it means an entirely new council, so be it, as long as it meant there were more people interested in the union.
" The Codfather" is misinformed.I believe his/her informant has confused us with the Dolce Vita group,which has one earlier post on this thread.Dolce Vita is a largely south Belfast based group of would-be intelligentsia from various eminent walks of life.I understand they include within their number some leading figures within Nipsa who are thought to have a close insight into the thinking of the Nipsa Unity group and that they do socialise in a number of Ormeau Road hostelries but more commonly in the"Big House"(Pavilion)than the Errigle or any of the others.The 'Cold Light Of Day' group on the other hand is an independent discussion group based solely within Nipsa which offers political analysis to elected representatives and has no affiliations with any existing factions.We have not ruled out contesting future elections as a "Third Strand" alternative.
We applaud "Patrique" for his selfless approach to encouraging greater participation but all must understand the consequences of indulging in fantasies rather than realities.It is a fantasy to believe that civil servants would ever vote for an all-out strike,much less stay out for a week and equally surreal to imagine that any government or administration would ever tear up existing fiscal policy to pander to such an approach.Nipsa membership in the Civil Service has declined markedly since the last time these fantasies were promoted and any elected body(it would be the CS Group Executive Committee rather than the General Council in this scenario)going back to such nonsense would simply provoke more resignations from ordinary members despairing of such stupidity.Our first priority in the Civil Service should be to entice back some of the people we've lost and alienated and build up membership-about a third of civil servants are not unionised and the challenge for all who care about such matters is to persuade them that union membership is in their interests.We believe this will be an uphill struggle given the behaviour of the divisive clique running the show at present but as the previous post rightly points out,you get what you vote(or don't vote) for.
After numerous strikes, walkouts and such we haven't lost many members in branch 8. We are strong because of our stance.
And always remember, we all live in the only country in Western Democracy where a worker's strike brought down the government, let alone obtained a payrise.
Yes,and look what happened then-waves of anti-union legislation that ensured that such a thing could never happen again,backed by working class voters switching to Thatcher because they were sick of the unions' constant negativity.The unions blew it big time by rejecting the Bullock Report.The rest is history.
The sort of strikes you describe,Patrique,are the epitome of Christian practice.Donating numerous days' pay to your employer as a response to provocation is the modern version of turning the other cheek.Snag is,the non-Christians eventually cop on that all they get out of it is a hole in the pocket.How the world has changed since the 1970s........
With such a positive outlook as that, I am surprised unions are not thriving.
You only end up with less in your pocket if you have a one day strike, then another etc etc. All out strikes only last a week because you either win or lose. And if you are not prepared to take such action, you will never have reasonable wages.
Our branch usually lose a few members because the union will not strike, and these people think there is no use being in a union unless the union is prepared to take action.
As for the anti -union laws of the 1980s and early 1990s, the union should be fighting against these, instead of saying we better not do anything incase the government reacts. If you are not going to do anything, there is not much point in having a union.
Fighting unions win respect, docile unions attract smiles, nice words, and hidden contempt.
Rex van Ryn:Yes,the Bullock Report was a missed opportunity for the unions,the like of which we may never see again,but there's no point harking back to the Harold Wilson era now.This is 2008.Nipsa took the right approach last year when it backed the Trade Union Freedom Bill though it will be surprising if this gets anywhere.A better option may be to focus on the devolved administration here which now has the powers to legislate on employment matters which were formerly the preserve of Westminster.It does not help,of course,when elements within Nipsa support the extension of existing Tory created anti-union laws on the election of officials.Makes us look a bit silly.
Patrique:The position of the 'Cold Light Of Day'Group is that one day strikes are occasionally a necessary form of tokenism.They're not about winning,they're about taking part.All-out strikes are generally costly,divisive and don't cut any ice-look at the classroom assistants,DVTA staff,etc-there is understandably no enthusiasm for such an approach in the Civil Service."Fighting" should not be used as a euphemism for stupidity,as Trots are habitually prone to do when not actually drooling at the mouth at the very mention of the word 'strike.'If I walk into a crowd of knife-wielding thugs bellowing insults and brandishing a rolled-up newspaper,I'll get a "fight" all right but I will also stand a high possibility of winding up at best incapacitated or at worst dead.Few responsible members would advocate such an approach.
i agree with much of the above. The idea to support the trade union freedom bill was a branch 8 motion last year, as was the call for a one day strike by all public service unions against public service cuts.
However the civil service needs real action, probably an all out strike. Do not forget that management crapped themselves a few short years ago when the ballot advocating such action was narrowly lost, narrow being a relevant term given the history of the NICS and strikes.
Our researchers have indicated that the resolution on the Trade Union Freedom Bill was in fact moved by Branch 219,not Branch 8,though the latter may have supported it from the floor. We consider it irrelevant as neither the UK Government nor the NI Assembly is likely to buy into even the very limited measures it contains. Sadly,few union members seem to care.
We are not sure what Patrique's views on one day strikes are as it is not feasible to support the contradictory opinions put forward by Rex van Ryn and the Cold Light Of Day group at the same time.Surely it is one or the other?
Finally,we have spoken to some of the main players on both sides during the last pay dispute and they have confirmed that,far from "crapping themselves" at the notion of an all-out strike in the Civil Service,the Management Side were wetting themselves laughing that the union had opted for self-inflicted humiliation-a genuine "lose-lose" position.Some of the more hawkish elements were hoping fervently for a narrow "yes" vote as they reckoned that had the potential to cause Nipsa terminal damage. We are dealing with more responible Management Side leadership now than then but we are still hamstrung by the Barnett Formula,which determines what money we get allocated,and Treasury pay policy which the local Executive has bought into.Our 4% a year three year deal is suddenly looking very attractive. Hopefully the CS Group EC will not be recommending suicide as an option next time.They'll not get many takers if they do.
Plain John Smith if you walk into a knife-weilding gang perhaps you should be more worried about defending yourself rather than exactly what your yelling. Striking is not the first resort of most workers but when their forced into it by the opposition in this case the gang its fight or die. And to be honest you'll need the right leadership.
Maybe the cold light of day should stay in the pavilion.
The new tax changes have just wiped out my pay rise due in August. It has also wiped out the rise due to all AAs, AOs, and quite a few EO11s, in short much of the membership. Think about inflation, rocketing food and house prices, and let us all proclaim in one loud unified voice; "NO MORE THREE YEAR DEALS".
As for treasury limits, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we have ten billion to play with. Even better, become a neutral state like Sweden or Switzerland and we have mega money to distribute.
Fighting against poor legislation and administration is not treason, just common sense.
"Confused"-indeed you are! I do not know who "Plain John Smith" is but I do know it is not me.Nor do I frequent any bars on the Ormeau Rd-it;s a long way from home and I'd probably be experiencing the cold light of day by the time I got back from it.I have nothing against the"right leadership",incidentally.It would certainly beat the leadership of lemmings,which unfortunately is what we're currently reduced to at General Council and some other bodies.
"Patrique"-dream on,friend!We'd all like to live in Utopia but regrettably it doesn't exist.If by some miracle the money presently being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan were suddenly freed up,you can be damned sure it would not be lavished on civil servants.How about this for an alternative slogan:"NO MORE THREE YEAR DEALS UNLESS IT HAPPENS TO BE THE BEST OF THE OPTIONS ACHIEVABLE,IN WHICH CASE FAIR ENOUGH!" Yeah,I know,it doesn't quite have the same rhetorical flourish,does it.
I see electricity is going up by 4% to match any pay deal.
Ooopps. That was 30%. In three years it will probably be 45%.
Here endeth the lesson.
Yes.It is perhaps worth noting that NIPSA civil servants still did better than their UK counterparts.
However,to more serious matters.This post is to confirm that the Executive Council of Dolce Vita will be presenting a paper by the summer entitled "NIPSA-Towards 2015",a main focus of which will be the arguments for the merger of NIPSA with at least one other union by the stated date.
We are offering a two month consultation period during which NIPSA Unity,TFC and all other interested fringe associations including the Cold Light Of Day Group,Nipsa Future,NIPSA Together and the Blue Collar Workers' Co-Operative as well as individual members are cordially invited to contribute to our deliberations.Those wishing to put forward a view should contact any member of the Executive Council(NIPSA Section) by the end of June or leave written comments at the Pavilion Bar for collection.If exercising the latter option,make sure you have the bus fare home as a pint of beer is £2.90 there now.
Very interesting,but why the exclusion policy?You have invited all these other groups but you did not invite the Champagne Socialists.
Yes he did. TFC was near the top of the list.
Recently got an email advising me who I shud vote for for the Nipsa PO elections, this email was from TFC...please tell me whay they are asking me to vote for a Classroom assistant strike breaker.....who on the day of the JNC talks was texting all other classroom assistants encourgageing us to go back to work....havent the TFC activists done there homework on this so called activist.....OPEN YR EYES before they get wiped
Tell us more,prithee......the initials should do. Just returned from Nipsa Conference 2008 where there has been a definite and remarkable sea change. President Moore now rules the roost overall,Chairperson Allaway reigns over the Civil Service(where Unity swept the boards in the elections with a large majority, including 8 out of the top 10 elected-first 4 home were the legendary DOE Mafia)and the traditional 3 daft Trot motions(on a political fund,branch funds and the election of officials) were kicked brutally into touch by the delegates,with unknown and low profile speakers from the floor totally outshining and out arguing their better known and hand picked counterparts on the Trot side.The PO Group remains a Trotskyite irrelevance but,frankly,who cares.Seems that the TFC bullshit is no longer cutting it. In bars the length and breadth of Newcastle,they were being ridiculed for their ineptitude in argument,their silly bleating about "democracy",their shameless opportunism in trying to railroad a motion through when there was hardly anyone in the hall and their utter disregard for the rules and constitution of their own union.Much of the criticism was coming from former supporters.Changed days,comrades! Watch the Unity phoenix continue to soar..........you ain't seen nothin' yet!
I resent being referred to as "unknown" in the post above, and I spoke on the political fund motion. If 20,000 members want to believe it is 1975, well indulge them for another couple of years.
As for "rail roading" through a motion to a half empty hall, you would need to be careful in your suggestions. Firstly you are suggesting that no-one from the right was in the hall, which would suggest conference does not interest them. Secondly, I can assure you itv was not TFC's idea to have the motion heard, as the speaker was not in the hall.
And at the end of the day, the most important motion on the agenda, in regard to member's rights, was Motion 30, which wished to ensure that you had no right to union representation if you were sacked from work. Fortunately Branch 8 saved the day, supported by the rest of TFC.
In bars the length and breadth of Newcastle,they were being ridiculed for their ineptitude in argument,their silly bleating about "democracy",and their utter disregard for the rules.
posted earlier.
I forgot to ask in my last post, what where these people doing in bars? The conference hall would give you a better understanding of things.
Why is democracy derided as "silly bleating?"
I admit there is a serious disregard for the rules, but I do not know where the blame lies. Discussion on the Single Equality Bill was ruled out of order and rejected by conference because it has not been passed yet, but the Trade Union Freedom bill, which will never be passed by the look of things, was on the agenda. The only difference was one was proposed by Branch 8, the other by general council. Countless motions were ruled out of order using rules 6.1 and 6.9, and as explained many times this is a breach of the rules. However these breaches are approved by what you describe as a NIPSA Unity dominated union, so I suspect the blame lies there.
Of course this entire thread was inspired by TFC election success, so I suspect your argument may be flawed and inept.
Can hardly be helped if people don't understand the desperate need for the likes of Branch Funds. People miss the point - the fact TFC got it to a constitutional amendmend was an achievement in itself. The three motions were never going to win. If it hadn't have been for those three motions Conference would be dead in the water.
On a separate note - the attendence this year during the actual conference was appalling.
Ah didney ken the smell of sour grapes cud be so overpowering.The right wing scab side of nipsa that wants to be more tory than the tories got their fat capitalist asses kicked,end of story.We're nae going to casualise the union to pander to these right wing loonie bins-conference was a stunning victory for the ordinary working class people who don't want to be lectured by scabs and who got behind Unity tae stand oop tae the right wing.Maybe the Time For Thatcherism clones will learn their lesson but dinny count on it wi' these dafties.3-0,scabs-dae ye oonderstand tha'?Unity,ya ba's!
i find it hard to see that motion 30 had anything to do with having no rights if you are sacked. you can of course still be an ordinary member after being sacked from your job, you just pay the subscription yourself instead of from your pay each month.
i hardly see that branch 8 saved the day
if someone stops being a member half way through a personal case, should they really be supported and represented by shop stewards on the floor, i dont think they should, facility time is to act on behalf of the union and its members. you could still represent the ex-member on work time as a work place employee, saving facility time for the members that are still paying their dues.
you could say would an insurance company still insure your car if you stop paying them, i know what would happen there.
seems like some people just want to boost their ego's
You obviously didn't read motion 30. The constitutional amendment said you forfeit "all rights" once you cease to be a member for "any reason".
The term all rights over rides any guarantees in the constitution.
So, you are sacked from the Civil Service say. You arrive at Harkin House seeking representation. "Sorry, you need to be employed in the civil service to be a member in your case, you are no longer employed, so you do not have "any rights" as you are no longer a member for "any reason".
It could have happened.
However, you don't want to read motions or listen to the debate, so why am I wasting my time with a petty individual like you?
I must just be one of the good guys.
All of the delegates present from the 'Cold Light Of Day' Group understood that motion to be simply a legal technicality,in on the advice of the Nipsa solicitors,aimed at spelling out to disaffected former members that they would not be getting any subscription money back when leaving-it did not impinge on representational rights.That's what our General Council contacts were telling us anyway.
On a separate note,we believe Vox Pop and Wee Wullie Broon have a point regarding those three"old chestnut"motions.Getting them on the agenda in actual constitutional form was something of an own goal as everyone can now see in black and white just how barking they are.They are never going to become policy,true.That being the case,why is Conference time wasted on them,year after year?They are only stopping other motions being heard.We also believe VP and Wee Wullie also hit the nail on the head about the resurgence in support for the Unity Group.This was very obvious on the Civil Service side and on the floor at the main Conference.DSD members in particular appear to have turned their backs on TFC big-time.It will be interesting to see if Unity can now make inroads into the incestuous cesspit that the PO Group has degenerated into and if they can take back the General Council next year.They will have the support of this group in their endeavours,though we remain non-aligned.It is perhaps a salutary lesson to whoever started this thread,with the purpose of engaging in triumphalism,that pride comes before a fall.
Five years max before we have a political fund, if the union survives that long without one. It is now inevitable.
patrique (hope i spelt that right, strange name that)
rule 2.10 from the nipsa rule book 2007
2.10 A member whose employment is terminated shall continue in membership at the discretion of the General Council.
if general council wanted to ride over members rights then they would have gotten this rule deleted or amended.
the cold light of day group more than likey stated the true reason for motion 30.
you see it comes down to the fact do you just see the bad in people or the good, obviously you and your branch believe general coucil are hiding something else.............
maybe you are right,
listen i'll give you a motion for next years
In Section 2: Membership of the NIPSA constitution the following new rule
shall be added to the existing Rule 2.20:-
“(g) Ordinary members ceasing for any reason (except termination of their employment) to be ordinary members,
will forfeit any right to receive or continue to receive benefits or
privileges of membership and shall forfeit all that s/he has paid to
the Union.”
instead of just all out figting against somethings maybe you could have asked for remittance of the motion
well good luck, hopefully i'll get to conference next year and see you putting this motion forward i'll even get up and support it with you....
quote from you above
"However, you don't want to read motions or listen to the debate, so why am I wasting my time with a petty individual like you?
i did read the motion, but like i said above i look for the good in people, i wasnt at conference to listen to the debate or lack of but i will enter into debate about it now and i've listened, how you think i'm a petty individual is beyond belief all from one post on this site
see you just look for the bad in people now thats sad....
Hoist by one's own petard, I suspect. I know why General Council wanted the amendment, but they over reacted and got the wording wrong. No good remitting the motion, they may not have got the point, the point being that the motion's wording was wrong.
I certainly didn't over react. Look at the facts. If branch 8 for the first time managed to get the support of the floor, you know we were right on this one. This is the same floor that decided the union were not interested in Equality, and seriously undermined our right to special leave and flexi. Branch 8 argued to no avail that flexi, special leave and equality needed protecting.
Now if we could not win arguments on those matters, it follows that as we were supported on motion 30, conference must have agreed with our argument. Usually they just vote against us without listening. I mean, conference voted against equality, flexi and special leave! That takes some doing.
I apologise for singling you out, but alas the innocent sometimes suffer by association with the guilty. As you were not at conference, you are relying on poorly reported hearsay,.
At the end of the day, it should not be too much for any trade unionist to admit we were right on motion 30. I was not accusing General Council of skulduggery, just over reaction.
Patrique (it's a French name, as in Saint)
Patrique: could one respectfully suggest that Branch 8 loses its Millwallesque paranoia and starts listening to other people occasionally?You are misrepresenting the democratically agreed views of the members without addressing any of the arguments that were put forward.
Wee Willie Broon:Your Caledonian impudence is appreciated re the extreme right wing lunacy exhibited by the Thatcherite "Time for Change" faction this year on the election of officials motion.Sad,but I suppose inevitable,that these people yet again resorted to personalised abuse when they saw they were losing the argument.Now that these people have showed themselves in their true colours,they are dead.The future of Nipsa is Unity-trade union oriented,non-sectarian,for the members and never the puppets of any political party or sect.Wee Willie,there will be a pint of porter behind the bar for you at the weekend in the Big House if you care to identify yourself.
Plain John Smith:Could I thank you publicly through this thread for the excellent submission we received from the Cold Light Of Day group on our 'Nipsa -towards 2015' project(we have received 4 submissions to date).Perhaps some of your people could meet some of our people to flesh some of these ideas out?I think you know at least one member of our Executive Council.
Dear Frankie Stout,
By rejecting a political fund to be acceptable to BOTH sides of the community, Unity stand accused of gross sectarianism. Realists and those supporting the peace process are trying to establish ONE community in Norn' Ireland. As I said at conference, NIRPSA are now aligned with the dissidents from the TWO communities that caused division in the North, which is why progressive thinkers want ONE community.
I hope that is clear.
I am not sure about Branch 8 listening but thank the Lord we actualy read the motions. Perhaps that is the reason we appear to be in opposition on a number of occasions, most other branches do not read the full motion.
Wait to you hear my speech on the Political Fund next year, which I completed last Monday. Wonderful stuff.
And just for my friend M.W., I have just remembered that I am on General Council, so I most certainly was not accusing myself of dodgy dealings.
Patrique,I do not think any of the members of the Nipsa Unity group-certainly none of those I know-could be remotely described as being sectarian in any shape or form.There is a need to avoid senseless slurs of this ilk.I am aware of their views on a political fund and all I can say is that they are very much in tune with those of most members,as we saw yet again this year. I would estimate the chances of a two thirds majority deciding otherwise as zero.Most members are proud of our independence from political parties(Trots and other externally controlled elements excepted)and would never countenance a penny of union money going to any party,be it a mainstream one like Sinn Fein or the DUP or a mad/poisonous outfit such as the BNP,Socialist Party or Ku Klux Klan.It simply ain't going to happen,so live with it.Feel free to argue otherwise next year,of course,though it might be a tad difficult now you are no longer 'on the floor' but elevated to higher ground.
I thought about being gagged Frankie, but I can speak on behalf of General Council. NIPSA used to avoid the political arena to avoid being identified with extremists, and we won respect for it. However in 2008 those extremists are now respected, more than NIPSA, as they did take their place in the political development of the province.
Things have changed, we haven't. Trying to maintain a status quo of TWO communities in Norn' Ireland, which every opposition speaker mentioned, is sectarian in my mind. We should be one community.
Well,Nipsa has certainly always acted as one community on these motions.Members from every conceivable background have emphatically rejected them on a continuous basis for god knows how many years and Patrique if you are serious about any of them being overturned in five years,as you say,let us have odds.There will be no shortage of takers.
I find it contradictory that someone who has decided to take direction from "TFC" is advocating community unity.I would not compare the Socialist Party with the other groups a previous post has done,I think that's a bit mischeivous,but they have been divisive and polarising over the years and have done their utmost to tear the union apart.This year they have even succeeded in turning all the staff against them and it was heartening to see these workers stand up to them at conference.When they have tried this "party within a party" approach in political parties,eg the British Labour Party,the Irish Labour Party,the Northern Ireland Labour Party,etc.,these organisations have simply expelled them to stop them doing damage.Last year they abused their own fellow Nipsa members at conference,this year they attacked other unions,the last thing they want is any sort of unity.Maybe that's why the opposition has adopted that name to show that they do want it,I do not know.
I will say this.I only started attending Nipsa conferences again last year after a gap of more than ten years and nothing has changed,it's the same old rigmarole and the same old motions.Fairly depressing all round.Do we really need this every year?
What is this fixation with the Socialist Party? TFC have members in the SWP, SDLP, Fianna Fail and a host of other parties.
Is everyone in Unity a member of the Irish Labour Party, a party which does not organise in the North?
As for the same motions year in, year out, that is the fault of Standing Orders. Every year we point this out, but do not receive any support.
Seems it is impossible to please some people.
I do not have a "fixation" with the Socialist Party but I have read the posts on this thread and some of the critical comments have struck a few chords.I do remember many of the same old faces from what used to be called "Militant Tendency" at conference years ago and all they have seemed to change is the name.A lot of the people who supported them then did not have much of a clue as to who or what they were following and I would be amazed if they had managed to attract people with political savvy from other parties.I do find that hard to believe.As for "Unity",I recognised some of them too from a decade ago but never thought of any of them as political.
If something could be done to ditch tired old motions that might attract some new people.Nipsa is in trouble long term if it doesnt and I thought the best motion all week was the one from branch 28(I think)setting out what needed to be done.I am not over enthused about going back again at the minute.
The best motion came from ranch 28, from the TFC influence in that branch. Enough said.
Mind you, it should not have been on the agenda as Branch 8 have passed similar motions for the last ten years.
Same old motions every year.
We agree with 'Big Link',this was one of the better motions and perhaps more detailed and more carefully thought out than some efforts in previous years with similar ambitions. Our General Council sources however tell us that there was a lot of grumbling and begrudgery from the 'TFC' majority on GC(didn't suit their agenda) even in allowing it 'qualified' support,whatever that's supposed to mean.
We have also heard that Tommy Wright(Unity) was the main guy behind it.He was the GC speaker, though it was moved from the floor by another Branch 28 man,Ryan McKinney,who is apparently allied with'TFC' again now(has he left the SWP?).This may account for the confusion-the two main factions agreeing on something.Was there a blue moon that night?
TFC did not have a majority on the General Council which gave qualified support. They do now, starting on 9th June, but conference was held in May, so Unity had a majority.
Ryan is a member of the SWP. Why should he have left?
If the Unity General Council had acted on the branch 8 motion passed the year before, to examine branches that do not attend conference or submit details of an agm, there would have been no need for Ryan's motion.
Try to keep up.
And hopefully we can soon have a united General Council, acting for everyone.
1. Alzheimer's,is it,old chap? See Bran Broth's post of 29.02.08(4th in thread) and that of 'The Pedant' on 1.03.08(7th in thread).Unity never had a majority on the General Council last year.'TFC' did,and a fat lot they did with it,as per usual.So-you must ask your Trot bosses what they did with Brabnch 8's motion.
2.The SP,which set up and controls 'TFC' and similar groups in unions,and the SWP both hate each other.Books have been written(I kid you not)on the subject of their differences and there has been much public name-calling.Devotees of "The Life Of Brian" will recognise similarities between the Judean People's Front and the Popular Front Of Judea.Difficult to imagine reconciliation,though to most people it's hard to discern much difference other than the fact that the SWP can boast one individual with some political credibility(Eamonn McCann),the SP none. A strange alliance,then,indeed. Can it last? Who knows.
3. A united General Council would be a great idea.Let me know when the Trots are being taken out and who's got the contract.
Interesting post Plain John.
I may not have written one of those books you mentioned but I did submit a 20,000 word thesis on it for university, so I am well aware of the history.
Eamon McCann is one of my own heroes, we invited him as guest speaker at the Branch 8 AGM the other year. Eamon is committed, and wrote a great sports column in the Sunday Tribune. Yep, a hero.
So I am aware of history, but some of us believe it is Time for Change. I shall explain.
Take Branch 8. We actually believe that our business is representing the members, it is not just a slogan with us. At conference people complained because we never stopped, at breakfast, dinner, and at the disco we are still discussing union business. Some see that as sad, but we are not zealots, we do not expect that commitment from everyone. Ten minutes a week, to read all the stuff I send the members each week, is all we ask. Read it, and ask questions if you like, and raise issues. That shows an interest, and that is all we ask. We get 5 to 7 hundred at all members meetings, and most of our members vote in the elections. They show some interest, in who runs the union, and into whose hands they are placing their fate when voting.
I would be overjoyed if 30,000 members voted in the next Council election, and elected an entirely new council. It would show interest, and a sign of caring. I would be delighted if they all voted for me and others who think we need a change. That is unlikely to happen.
Unfortunately at present only the two power blocs get votes, as it is their supporters who vote by and large. This needs to be changed. The members need to be given an interest and a stake in the union. That can only happen if the union does something. I will volunteer to address the issues raised in Motion 28, and raised by Branch 8 in the past.
As I said, some of us believe it is time for change, and want to try to get the best people in the union working together to improve the union, regardless of political allegiance. Hence we have SWP and SP in time for change, Fianna Fail, PUP, SDLP and others.
As for "being controlled by our Trot Masters" you obviously know little of the history of Branch 8. Many have tried to control us, management, union officials and presidents, Chairs, secretaries and other officers, all to no avail.
We still believe the union belongs to the members and they should be encouraged to participate, even if it is by simply reading circulars, going to all members meetings, and voting at election time. We manage to do that quite well in our own branch. And our reps could be in the SP or the Reform Club or Conservative Party, it doesn't matter, as long as they are prepared to represent the members. We have reps from all spectrum's of political life in Ireland, and many with no political allegiance. Our aim is to have a good union, a united union, a union serving the members and trying to do its best, without fear of elections, or more pertinently, re-election.
Unfortunately with that attitude I fear my time on General Council may be short, but I had to try. Hopefully many on council will realise that it is perhaps council that causes the apathy in the union, and we could have change and unity.
There's an idea for a new power bloc, Unity Change or Change for Unity. Unfortunately the argument over whose name comes first could be the downfall of such a group.
I honestly did not intend to stir up such a hornet's nest with my observations.There seem to be more than enough contributors to this thread capable of doing that already.
From my memories of Militant Tendency,as they were,they will never enter into any voluntary coalition that they cannot control.I do not believe that they have attracted support from across the political spectrum because all political parties got wise to their methods donkeys years ago.They are simply pariahs in political life and I cannot think why anybody would want to infiltrate them,so no,I just don't buy that claim for a minute.I would have thought they might have come up with a better slogan instead of sharing the same one with David Cameron's Conservative Party campaign group but that's their concern.Mine is that they havent changed at all,it's still the same old motions and frankly the same old rubbish.Hard to listen to,i'm afraid,though I would not wish to get involved in any of the slagging matches taking place here.I cant say I know much about the opposition except that some of them have been around for over 10 years too and that's a problem for all unions,lack of new blood.
If this sounds pessimistic I'm sorry,but as I said before,I will not be champing at the bit to get back to another conference,I've seen too many groundhog days.Good luck to anyone who thinks they can ever get any cohesion out of these groups.You might do better praying for a miracle.
I have only discovered this site today and dont know whose genuine on it and who isnt but if there is anybody with any real influence in nipsa I would ask them this.Why have members of the socialist party been going around bragging about putting in back claims for expenses going back years and telling people they have a tame headquarters official signing them off.If an ordinary member tried that they would be told no its three months absolute limit.Is there one law for the general counsel and another for the rest of us?
Looks like it.It's a scandal if it's true.Maybe some of the regular scribes can tell us.There are enough of them on the thread who claim to be members or associates of the General Council or belonging to underground groupings with insider connections.Here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is,or should that be the members money.Who will step up to the mark?
Get a grip of yourselves. Who is it that's bragging about putting in back expenses "going back years". Made up pish. Get a life FFS.
As a member of General Council, new, and CSGE I didn't even know there were expenses. expenses for what?
I know everyone gets expenses for conference, the same amount, but what else would you be claiming for?
Sounds like porkies to me.
Why dont you make inquiries or ask at the general counsel.
On my AO wages I can't afford a QC in a slander case.
Once the genie is out of the bottle in these matters it can be difficult to put it back in.The rumours referred to are certainly growing apace,most recently I understand from a source not unadjacent to the Monico Bar.
It is not the policy of the 'Cold Light Of Day' Group,a distinctly above ground grouping which consists mainly of low paid civil servants who do not get preferential treatment from Nipsa or anyone else,to be drawn into conjecture or naming names;we would simply note that it does indeed appear to be a very short road from Marx to Mammon these days.
Gates to capitalism,once flung asunder,lead inexorably in that shameful direction.Truly,it is the rich who are the ones who are getting richer in this tarnished and benighted realm.
You were right,PJ,not to name names in your "Gates To Capitalism"post above.It would be reprehensible for anyone to do so,without giving the SP time to set the record straight regarding the number and identity of their members who have been involved in this unseemly money-grubbing.
"Time for Change"indeed....used to be that Trots professed an almost Carmelite austerity towards private wealth(publicly at least-it never stopped them lifting Conference expenses cheques off naive delegates,without ever telling them where their money was going,or happily trousering seconded officer allowances while loudly proclaiming that they were a bad thing,or snapping up lucrative management jobs while simultaneously moaning about"the bosses").
These days it does seem that the "greed is good" mindset and tinseltown values of Mulholland Drive have superseded the working class trade union ethos of Harkin House,in some quarters at least.That saddens us immeasurably.Will the SP now make a statement?Don't hold your breath.
Some wonderful writing - some of you should publish a book - your way with words is a wonder to behold.
There is more obsession among sections of Nipsa members about the Socialist Party than any other party. They get a tiny percentage of votes at any election but are the main talking point on a message board. You couldn't make it up - lol.
Still it stops you from talking about your own political allegiences and how hypocritical that would make you look.
Is this the nearest thing we're going to get from the Socialist Party in the way of a response,rather than the statement that has been called for?
If so,nobody can claim that they are no longer followers of Marx.
Harpo,that is-he made a career out of playing dumb too.
I am not a member of the Socialist Party but would be happy to meet those posting these libellous slurs face to face to explain procedures, if they would be kind enough to supply their names.
I will not hold my breadth.
Not sure whose been libeled?Maybe u should find somebody whose in the socialist party and knows the truth to give there name and go on the record,i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for that.
Why would someone defend themselves against a rumour?
Put it this way. The Queen has never denied being a member of Al Quieda. Does that mean she is? If she isn't, why hasn't she said so.
I love childish games.
A truly informative and illuminating discourse; I'm delighted I stumbled across it!
Unfortunately the rhetoric isn't matched by the maths.
by patrique - nipsa Fri Apr 25, 2008 00:46
I see electricity is going up by 4% to match any pay deal.
If the pay rises had been 4%, whilst not happy, I'd be a lot better off than I currently am!
Since joining the NICS my pay has risen to the dizzy heights of £14060 pa thanks to the hard fought negotiations carried out on my behalf - had it not been for these pay rises (gained exclusively by TFC & their cohorts - or so I'm told) then I'd be on a miserly £13552 purely as a result of the progressive salary scale - WITHOUT ANY ANNUAL PAY RISES!
It's easy to see Patrique is a true member of TFC, CSGE & Gen Council - he never lets facts get in the way of spin! This magnificent rise of £508 OVER THE PAST 3 YEARS actually equates to SEVEN PENCE per hour per year (approximately the price of a penny chew)
I shall sleep content knowing that my future financial security rests in such safe hands!
As for the political ethos of TFC / SP / SWP - I can't help suspecting the Marx it derrives from is more likely to be Groucho rather than Karl.
percentages
author by patrique - nipsapublication date Fri Apr 25, 2008 00:46Report this post to the editors
I see electricity is going up by 4% to match any pay deal.
Ooopps. That was 30%. In three years it will probably be 45%.
Here endeth the lesson.
I believe that is what I posted, my dear Once was Blind. Someone once said satire died when they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel peace prize. Obviously he was right.
And you did pick the wrong subject to engage me on, namely the last pay deal.
Firstly I was not on any CSGE or council, I am new to these bodies, having been elected to CSGE mainly for my spirited opposition to the last pay deal. At the late lamented CSA both speakers who arrived, one for Branch 8, one for 7, from CSGE to sell us the deal were nearly lynched. Both were from TFC. Both were however reporting the CSGE line, known as collective responsibility or democracy.
At conference Branch 8 opposed the motion accepting the deal. I think that was the one were we got ten delegates standing, only to be denied a card vote.
Branch 8 voted for all out strike, one of the few branches to do so. We thought the pay deal was shite, and still do. At conference last month we had a motion rejecting any further 3 year deals. Unfortunately it was rejected by the "Once were blind but still can't see" brigade. We were the only people in favour of our motion. We did support the other motion saying much the same thing, again one of the few.
Hopefully I shall see you on the barricades when we reject the next deal, we could do with a bit of help.
As for the end of your tiresome tirade, the only SP I know is available at Barney Eastwood's. As for the SWP, just a short time ago Branch 8 were being attacked for being SWP dominated, one person out of 950. By that standard TFC is Fianna Fail dominated as one member's dad used to do the bar in Fegan's pub in Drumcondra and was a friend of Bertie.
As for the scurrilous rumour being propagated here, if anyone can add substance to it, please let me know and I, with the help of a few others, would soon put a stop to such practices, as that type of thing would be deplorable.
However not one of the faceless people here can do that. Shame on you, and to think that many of you call yourselves trade unionists.
PS: Has the Queen made a statement on my accusation? No. That's it, she must be in Al Queida.
I cannot trust anybody who uses the word "discourse". Mental masterbation I'm afraid.
Away and write your book. The obsession with the SP has reached new hieghts or plummeted the depths - depends on your view
MemberofthesadbastardsCSC
PS - I am not a member of the SP - just wanted to let you know in case it made you paranoid.
The wolves are circling.....the vultures are hovering.....the goats are running from the mountain tops as the volcano of vituperation once again erupts,as yet another desperate attempt by NIPSA's motley collection of Trotskyist automatons,Stepford wives,nodding dogs and sham 'socialists'(otherwise known as "TFC") manifests itself,all to deflect attention from their shameful refusal to acknowledge that a number of their higher profile members have been filling their boots.It seems that there is a three-line whip out on "TFC" foot soldiers not to talk about this any more(too late,comrades-you've said enough,and the truth is now out there).A reflection of the extent of what is common knowledge now-I was in the Duke of York bar one night last week close to a group of a dozen or so NIPSA members and the entire company was talking about this scandal.It hasn't gone away,you know-nor will it. Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost-along with the wolves,vultures,goats,et al.
Disappointing to note that Patrique has now apparently swelled the ranks of the nodding dogs.The Queen/Al-Qaeada analogy is in particular weak and disingenuous.Patrique is not a member of the Royal household but he is a member of "TFC" and is entitled to ask questions of his colleagues,and demand a straight "yes" or "no" in response.Also,no members of the Royal household have to the best of my knowledge been swanning about boasting about the Queen being a member of Al-Qaeada.
The best option for the boot-fillers now is to come clean about it,assure members it will not happen again and return any money received beyond the normal three month limit to union coffers.Do I expect this to happen?No.I expect "TFC" to resort to their usual evasive posturing,seasoned by the inevitable invective that is their wearisome stock in trade. I would be delighted to be proved wrong but,like others,will not hold my breath.
Wrong again, Thomas Harris.
My grandmother's maiden name was MacBeth, and if you know your history MacBeth was King of Scotland, and the Kings of Scotland came to the English throne after Liz one, as the Yanks would say.
So while I am the rightful Duke of York, my nephew Conor is the rightful King. All I need to do is get the act of succession repealed. King Conor 1 sounds good.
And as a member of the Royal Family I will become an expert on claiming expenses, which you as a staunch Trade Unionist will oppose.
Despite my Royal blood however I did have an unhappy childhood, which is why I cannot relate to the rest of your thread. Even as a child I couldn't relate to "Jackanory" and it is too late now.
So who are the three witches?