Danny Alexander earns £134,000 a year, yet he wants to steal the pensions from cleaners, dinner ladies and nurses. Our response is outright rejection of government policy which expects us to "pay more, work longer and get less". No less a figure than Mervyn King, head of the Bank of England, said the price of this financial crisis is being borne by those whom did not cause it and he's surprised that public anger is not greater. In Norfolk, we have higher numbers of elderly people as a percentage of the population and so the pensions issue is one that will impact greatly upon us. Already we are seeing the impact as older people can no longer afford to leave work and make way for younger workers, which is increasing the numbers of young people out of work.
There was much mention of Dave Prentis' references to strike action, but Dave also said he'd negotiate 'any time, any place and for as long as it takes' to get a positive outcome. It is felt that these aren't the words of someone who is rushing towards a ballot.
Motion 24 continued the debate on pensions, but from the perspective of black members. Black members face great hardships because they are three times more likely to suffer poverty than white people. In Norfolk, our black community is not represented proportionately within NCC. We know that there are not many black people working in the public sector and so they will be primarily suffering the effects of the cuts in private sector roles.
Motion 39 demanded that public sector services should stay public and explored the challenges presented by mutual and social social enterprise organizations. NCC leader, Derrick Murphy, suggested that the youths who used Providence Street services should set up a scheme and run it themselves. However, without adequate and secured funding and business advice and support from properly trained staff, it would be very difficult for these young people, however enthusiastic and motivated they were, to run the scheme to a professional standard.
There were a couple of motions that spoke about the need for joint action between trade unions and communities needing to come together to oppose cuts. Our delegation spoke about working with our trades councils and external groups such and the Norfolk Coalition Against the Cuts (NCAC).After lunch, we had an international speaker from Ireland - Shay Cody, General Secretary of IMPACT. Shay told the story of neoliberalism in Ireland and how the light-touch approach led to the failure of the Celtic Tiger economy and the well-documented devastating impact on Irish society.
Shay spoke passionately and movingly of what has happened in Ireland and how some are calling for the nation to default on their loans. This would see the deficit cut immediately but would also see public spending decimated and jobs lost while those private firms who contributed to the situation would be left practically unscathed.
Motion 87 took the campaign against public service cuts to an international audience. We are working with those in other countries who are suffering cuts like us. We should work with our sister unions in Europe and build real international solidarity in Europe. Collective action is not just possible, but can bring about change.
We had a further guest speaker, Phumzile Nxumalo, Deputy President of NAPSAWU in Swaziland. Swaziland are the only remaining country that has an absolute monarch. The king banned all political parties and trade union activities and this state of affairs has existed since 1973. He recently told his parliament what they could and could not discuss. There is no right of redress if the king does not agree with your opinion and unemployment in the country is over 45%. The International Monetary Fund have opposed structural adjustments and cut budgets but these have had little effect as they have no impact upon the king himself. Phumzile thanked our union for it's continued support.
Motion 89 concerned Palestine and the reality of the occupation was felt by our President, Angela Lynes. It was as a result of a visit she made to Palestine that this motion was proposed. We asked that our union review it's relationship with Histadrut and it was decided that we will continue to engage with it because that is what those people our representatives met in Palestine wanted.
Our policy will be one of critical engagement. We will challenge them to go beyond a paper policy. Histadrut is the leading trade union organization in Israel and has a key influence over labour law. There was opposition to this motion, which said that nothing would change and if there was another attack on a peace flotilla, they still wouldn't condemn it. There was a feeling that if nothing has changed, then we should insist on severing our ties with Histadrut.
There were many speakers against the motion. The Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) had said that it wanted other unions to sever all ties with Histadrut at an international labour conference held on 4th May 2011. However, other speakers said that the PGFTU had been clear when asked that they wanted our union to retain a relationship with Histadrut. Many speakers set out valid arguments both for and against the motion. This was a difficult motion to vote on, however, after discussion it was suggested that as we wouldn't share a platform with the BNP because it legitimises their politics of hate, so a continued relationship with Histadrut legitimises a union which has failed to condemn attacks, occupation and discrimination. We therefore voted against the Motion and it was lost.The final motion of the day was Motion 79 - Rights at Work. This government wants to make it even harder to claim unfair dismissal and are set on changing our laws so they are even more stacked against the worker. Countries with the fairest societies have the best collective bargaining. Workers rights are fundamental human rights and we are keen to see the Labour Party ready to support our call for the relaxation of anti-union laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment