By Andy Ford, Health sector delegate
Part 1 of this two part report gave an overview of the Unite conference and provided a balance sheet of the strengths and weaknesses that were on show. Part 2 looks at the main debates and decisions.
*******
The big debate of conference was on Palestine. Around 10% of the submitted motions were on the subject, which reflects the fact that Unite has been trying to avoid the debate around Palestine, Israel and the ongoing war/massacre for most of the past year, with motions on the subject repeatedly ruled out of order at the EC, often with no reason given.
Informally Unite activists and branches have been given reasons like “There are too many motions on Gaza”, or “That motion is now dated” (because of the delay in the EC hearing it), or that “We must not endanger the jobs of members in the defence industries”, or even that “All the Palestinian ambassador wants is the recognition of Palestine”. Which Unite cannot deliver anyway. And since when did we allow our union’s policy to be set by the ambassador of any country?
The issue of Gaza has built up a head of steam in the union
The issue has also been used by the United Left faction as a stick to beat Sharon Graham and her leadership, but the whole saga has been an unnecessary own goal by the Unite leadership, and attempting to block the discussion has only led to even more tension around the subject.
As a result, a huge head of steam had built up amongst Unite activists to get somewhere on the issue, given the horrendous murder, massacre and starvation being inflicted on innocent civilians, and conference had many, many motions on Gaza to discuss. The EC, Chair and General Secretary had done what they should have done all along, which was to broker a consensus, that captured all the main points. This was the EC Statement (see Unite policy conference backs Palestine – on the Left Horizons website).
Of course, our young members, transport and health workers do not want the aerospace factories to close down and Unite members to lose their jobs, but neither do the defence workers particularly want their output used to kill women and children. As one Aerospace shop steward rightly remarked in the debate, “It’s the companies who are complicit, not the workers”.
Under conference rules, all the Gaza motions would be proposed and seconded, and debated, but if the EC Statement passed, all other motions on Gaza would fall without a vote. That meant about 25 speakers before the vote on the EC Statement, and the debate took up most of Thursday.
Key points made by delegates in the Gaza debate
The delegate from the Passenger Transport NISC spoke first, mentioning the fact that multiple pro-Gaza motions had been ruled out at the EC, but speaking in support of the EC Statement. He decried the way that the US-backed ‘Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’ gives people food, and then kills them afterwards, and the open support of genocide by leading Israeli politicians.
A health delegate pointed out the murder of 1,500 health workers in Gaza, the demolition of hospitals, and targeted attacks on ambulances. “No more muffled tones from our union” was his demand. A Scottish delegate made the basic point that one genocide does not justify another, and that “With all due respect, recognising the state of Palestine is not enough”. Quite correct, it is no more than gesture politics that will make no difference to the starving and injured children of Gaza.
Wales Aerospace explained that they also oppose genocide and massacre, but that their members are not responsible for foreign policy, and that the union will support its members who decline to work on weapons or components destined for Israel; while the SW Aerospace delegate reported that her site has been subject to demonstrations calling her members “war criminals” and that any campaigning position needs to be decided with the reps and activists in the sector. A Scottish Aerospace delegate made an interesting point – that done right, opposition to war crimes in Gaza can build support for the union in the sector, and that at his workplace union reps have discussed with demonstrators to explain that calling for the factory to be closed just drives the workers towards the company – the same company making money from arms deals.
The EC Statement on Palestine passed, with four votes against.
A ‘Workers Just Transition’
The other EC Statement was on the green economy, decarbonisation and the energy industry. Entitled “A Workers’ Just Transition” the Statement aimed to obtain majority support for a position on climate change which does not endanger jobs in the oil, gas or nuclear industries. The guiding principle being that Unite will only support a transition that has the active support and oversight of workers in the impacted industries; and that there must be “concrete plans for job replacement, economic stability and community preservation.”
The Statement had to cover a motion from London Service Industries calling for financial support to regions and sectors facing challenges from the transition to a low-carbon economy; and an excellent motion from the Welsh Energy and Utilities RISC asking for planning laws to facilitate easier adoption of, and government funding for, the transition- paid for by a 1% wealth tax; a motion from the Scottish Bilfinger (a major engineering services company) branch opposing a “premature end” for the oil and gas industry and for Unite to lead on a unified strategy for the sector, entitled “Opposing policies that undermine livelihoods”; and a motion from the Kent Car Collection branch pointing out the fire risk of Electric Vehicle (EV) batteries, and calling for a pause in the sale of Evs.
On the other side of the equation, there were two amendments submitted from Scottish branches calling for Unite to oppose Gatwick expansion and a third runway at Heathrow.
The EC Statement, which would overwrite all submitted motions if carried, criticised “employers and politicians” who use “Climate change as an excuse to attack jobs, pay and conditions” and, probably remembering Port Talbot, stated that any transition has to be accepted by workers, not just their employers. The union is for green industries with good, unionised jobs, and the statement pointed to Unite helping secure a £2.5 billion steel fund, and ‘industrial pricing of energy’, while pointing to the lag in UK investment in green industries compared to “competitor countries”. The Statement calls for support for “a level playing field on energy costs”, upskilling and apprenticeships, use of procurement rules to support UK industry, modular nuclear reactors, green steel, wing turbines, tidal energy and EVs and decried the current situation where jobs are going, like at Vauxhall Luton or Grangemouth in Scotland, Lindsay oil refinery, with no replacement work on offer. Such policies just move carbon emissions off shore to countries with less regulation.
There was one speaker against the Statement, asking conference to reject it as it was “factually incorrect”, but how it was incorrect was not stated. The Statement passed with about 10 against.
Why no clear call for public ownership?
But really, if the sector needs that much state support – a £2.5 billion steel fund, ‘industrial pricing of energy’, (which means state-subsidised energy for private companies), favourable treatment on public contracts, and a government backed strategy – should it not be taken into public ownership to prevent the private owners running these industries into the ground? Otherwise, the government ends up just feather-bedding private companies so they can pretend to be profitable – while they continue taking money out of the business to distribute to their shareholders rather than investing in advanced technology, skills and apprenticeships.
In the steel debate a young delegate pointed out that Unite not raising public ownership of steel gave political oxygen to Reform who DID put the idea forward, and used it to gain credibility in Welsh working-class communities. Failure to put socialist solutions forward is what sustains populism and even the far-right.
Housing, equalities, the far-right
Most of the other motions went through unanimously, with many passionate and thoughtful contributions from workplace reps at the sharp end of the decline of British industry and public services.
On housing, Unite supports rent control and ending Right to Buy as ways out of the housing crisis. On pensions we call for a much higher state pension at 70% of median earnings (about £2,000 a month) and re-opening final salary schemes.
In the equalities debate on Tuesday, it was good to see that Unite opposes cutting the wages of men to secure ‘equality’ with women (a key aspect of the Birmingham bins dispute). I came in to say how this is too often the approach of other unions – because it is easier to agree to cut pay than to level women upwards – and gives trade unions a bad name by creating an “equality of misery”. There was a good discussion about the rise of global misogyny, courtesy of Donald Trump, Andrew Tate and also of the ‘Trad Wives’ movement, and Unite is now committed to building gender protections into collective agreements.
A number of motions on the far-right showed union activists thinking creatively about what causes the politics of grievance and hate to gain traction. Composite 7 calls for Unite to explain to members how the far right pose a threat to the very existence of trade unions and therefore to wages, to expand Unite Community, to win the Labour Party back to working class interests, and to counter far right influence in workplaces “not by labelling people… but by building genuine and inclusive movements for political change”. Politics again.
A separate motion from NW Young Members, (initially ruled out by SOC, but allowed in again on appeal) called for educational materials to help reps politically counter racist narratives and to “Redirect focus from national organisations towards grassroots community work”, while the motion from Rolls Royce Barnoldswick called for Labour to start pushing back on the far-right “instead of pandering to them”.
Artificial intelligence and organising in hospitality
Wednesday saw an extensive discussion on automation, AI and surveillance, seeking collective agreements on AI, sharing of the wealth generated by automation, and a legal right to be consulted on new technology. The debate on surveillance at work allowed young members from call centres and customer service jobs to describe the nightmare of work where every key strike is logged, and where each call is timed and assessed for variance from a notional average time. Even the HR processes on performance and sickness are governed by AI algorithms.
Composite 3, on combating abuse from members of the public explained the reasons for the epidemic of abuse experienced by workers in retail and financial services – in excessive wait times in automated systems, company targets to minimise interaction times with customers, and inappropriate allocation of complex queries to junior staff. No wonder there is an epidemic of stress, anxiety and depression.
Composite 1, on local government funding, called for council funding to return to 2010 levels, funding to be by a land tax or a local services tax, and for local government taxation to place less of a burden on the low paid. But there is no sign of Keir Starmer going anywhere near such policies.
Composite 2, “Winning Sectoral Bargaining in Hospitality”, asks Unite to demand that government mandates sectoral collective bargaining in the sector, to push for hospitality employers for minimum pay rates linked to the cost of living; standard sick pay, holiday and overtime pay across thew industry; a ban on zero-hours contracts and union recognition; all secured where necessary by industrial action.
Emergency motion from NHS delegates
The NHS did not come up as a huge topic of discussion, probably because existing policy is very strong, amounting to a full socialist programme for the NHS, but we as health delegates did get together to present an Emergency Motion on the nonsense of Wes Streeting’s ’10-Year Plan’ which pins everything on technology and data, while completely ignoring the main issue – the fragmentation and cost of the privatised system of adult social care, which causes ambulance delays, bed shortages and chaos in A&E (see Unite emergency motion on NHS 10-year plan on the Left Horizons website).
The Labour Party came up in just one motion, from the Automotive NISC, which reinforced support for Sharon Graham’s policy of “holding Labour’s feet to the fire” and to continue paying only the minimum affiliation fee to fund the Starmer clique’s disastrous leadership of the Party.
All the motions concerned with how the union is actually run, like the powers of the General Secretary, composition of delegations abroad, or how Unite training is delivered, fell off the agenda due to time, and will be considered by the EC.
So, Unite now has a great set of policies, which will be published online in due course. The challenge will be to bring the motions passed into the real world, which will require a drastic change in approach from the Labour Party. Given the inflexibility of Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and their clique, and their inability to listen to their own members, that will surely need a change of leadership.
