TUC 2006

 

TUC President Gloria Mills opening Congress, noted the significant upturn in trade union membership in Britain, called for a “resurgence of trades unionism for the 21^st century”, and asserted that a strong trade union movement is “the difference between a job lost and a job saved, and the difference between poverty pay and a living wage.”

 

She referred to the current time as “critical” with manufacturing industries “on the brink of collapse”, with privatisation “running rampant” and class and gender inequalities increasing. She forcefully drew Congress delegates’ attention to the huge class differences in wealth and power.

 

“Britain remains a fundamentally unequal society with just 2% of the population owning 33% of the total wealth – and this does not even begin to deal with the appalling exploitation of migrant workers, and the lack of workplace and employment protection for workers generally”.

 

“We have an employment relationship with the balance of power grotesquely tilted in favour of the employer”

 

“People are crying out for an alternative to free market ‘liberalisation’” 

 

Congress showed an absolute unity around the question of defending public services, and opposing the neo-liberal policies of fragmentation, marketisation and privatisation. The NUT made an important contribution to the debates, always focussing on education, but calling for an integrated public services campaign. Steve Sinnott took part in the major fringe meeting of the week “Public Services NOT Private Profit”, making a keynote speech – and we all worked hard in Congress and behind the scenes to encourage the TUC General Council to take a more active part in this campaign and to lead it. As a result the TUC is to organise a major conference on the issue, produce campaign material to use at national and local level and organise demonstrative activities. PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka, said that we should turn every stop that Tony Blair makes on his “farewell tour” an opportunity for a demonstration in favour of public services.

 

The manufacturing base of Britain however – subject to massive contraction and job loss – seemed to be a much harder issue for the TUC. How to fight to maintain jobs and rebuild industries, and build new ones, was  very inadequately considered in my view… and the subservience of Britain to the European Union’s neoliberal economic policies met only weak protest, and a call for a more progressive “social model” putting jobs and workers’ rights high on the agenda was made without any apparent conviction that it could be achieved. Though it is at first sight not “the business” of a public sector union like the NUT, we need to play our part in finding an alternative to the continuing decline of manufacture. The wealth of the country, and the well being of the families of the children we teach should be seen to be a very important context for our work as teachers and trades unionists. The search for greater profits leads to the export of jobs to countries with low wages, and the import of workers prepared to work here for wages lower than the norm. We should resist this in my view. I chaired a fringe meeting around the European Union’s policies on free movement of capital and labour.

 

The TUC committed itself to fight on pensions across the board, in the same way that we fought over teachers’ and public sector pensions. We agreed a “vigorous campaign on State and occupational pensions”, both educating young people particularly, and supporting an active campaign “with industrial action if necessary”.

GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny said, “many bosses think that pensions are an unnecessary burden on private enterprise… while the pensions industry think that they are a licence to print money for themselves.”

 

Congress added real meat to the bone of its opposition to anti-Trade Union laws, by supporting the development of a new Trade Union Freedom Bill ensuring that the rights established by international conventions are implemented here – long promised by the labour party in opposition… but not acted on in Government. The motion was opposed by the small union representing the most senior civil servants – the First Division Association – but everybody else supported it with “no ifs and buts” as proposed by RMT Gen sec Bob Crow.

 

We also committed ourselves to the Organising culture – the idea that unions are at their strongest and best when based on their members’ views and priorities, members in workplaces with strong union organisation, prepared to pursue union policy, stick together and take action if and when necessary. This gave me the opportunity for the Union to point out that the TUC should oppose  unions striking exclusive “sweetheart partnerships” with Government and employers, and then “selling” the limited and often negative outcomes to their own members. Though I did not mention the “Social Partnership” around Workforce Remodelling, RIG, Performance Management etc, I didn’t really need to. The other teacher unions, and the TUC General Council got the message.

 

In similar vein, we agreed to promote greater workplace democracy – by campaigning to secure proper time and facilities to allow worrplace union reps to do their jobs… absolutely essential in my view in terms of School Reps, H&S Reps, Learning Reps – and soon to appear “Equality Reps”

 

Congress insisted that we needed to take positive action to end workplace bullying. NUT president Judy Moorhouse laid the issues starkly before Congress, and received unanimous support.

 

The discussions around questions of equality, and fighting discrimination had some resonance to our own in the NUT. How do we ensure that equality issues are high on the agenda, and central to all our work? How do we ensure that all workers, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, ability/disability, sexual orientation are properly represented in the Unions? How do we ensure that these issues are not marginalised, becoming the sole property of those most directly affected by discrimination?

 

We were particularly concerned that we must prevent discrimination against muslims as a result of the “war against terror” and agreed a joint statement with the Muslim Council of Britain against Islamophobia

 

The international motions were subject to much discussion outside of Congress, and by the time they were agreed and composited presented very progressive policy, defending national sovereignty, opposing war and aggression. One motion was on Cuba, the other on Palestine – and both need reading in detail and acting on. Both are in line with the policy and activity of the NUT. Our speaker on Cuba was not heard through lack of time, but the motion, opposing current renewed attempts by the USA to subvert and disrupt civil society in Cuba, and bring about “regime change” by supporting dissident groups – some using terrorist methods – inside and outside Cuba.

 

On Palestine, Steve Sinnott was able to draw Congress’s attention to the effects of Israel and the EU refusing to allow the designated funds to reach the Palestinian Authority. Teachers – amongst many other Palestinian public sector workers have not been paid for many months. Steve insisted that the funds be made available, and that immediately the TUC should put pressure on our Government to ensure that teachers there are paid straight away. He offered the NUT as a conduit for UK Government funds for this purpose.

 

The Cuba & Venezuela fringe meeting and following salsa night were fantastic successes.

 

Also on peace, Congress adopted a motion and General Council statement opposing the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapon system.

 

Our central policy motion on the Education Bill was moved by Steve, and our policies – well-known to you! – were presented very clearly and powerfully in his speech and those following it. The motion was warmly and unanimously supported by Congress.

 

Throughout the time the NUT delegation – made up of individuals with views from a number of backgrounds - worked very well together. We sought to influence the debates by being involved in a much wider range of issues, by attending and speaking on behalf of the union at fringe meetings, by making contact with opposite numbers and interesting speakers from other unions and finding common ground. A successful few days.

 

What else? Oh yes, Tony Blair came, and was met by widespread lack of interest, somne demonstrations, one or two walkouts etc. He tried to use the TUC as the first stop on his farewell valedictory tour – and must have much regretted it. He appeared wooden, dogmatic, and at times belligerent in a rather childish manner.

 

Margaret Becket also came, and adopted a much more “open” style. But, like her mentor, she said nothing new, and dodged every question. Very sad.

 

I understand that Gordon Brown came across at the “invitation only” (not for me) dinner as much more dynamic, and even “visionary”. Though when I asked one person who was invited how Brown had differed in content from Blair’s message of continuing “modernisation” etc, he couldn’t think of any way at all…

 

The TUC remains a great democratic forum. As a delegate said to me, if you looked around the room at the 850 delegations, there are people from every type of occupation. Teachers, bankers, engineers, bakers, civil servants, physiotherapists, prison officers, seamen, actors, nurses, agricultural workers, writers, cooks, builders, train drivers, miners, social workers, lecturers, planners etc etc. Every skill, trade and profession you would need to run a successful economy and nation – organised into a democratic system of policy making.

 

Maybe we don’t need Tony Blair et al at all - we could do it all for ourselves!

 

 

 

 

Back to homepage

 

Back to contents