Brown Snubs GMB

otware Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:32:37 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Gordon Brown has decided not to address the GMB conference.



So after a week sitting on the fence, Brown decided not to address the annual GMB conference, angering Labour's 3rd largest affiliate. Of course it's been put down to the PM being busy, but I don't think people believe that for a minute. It's unfortunate that Brown can't even show GMB the respect of accepting their invitation after they endorsed him in the leadership 'election' last year - a bad decision in my opinion, one that I'm sure many members regret.

It is well known that GMB and CWU have conference motions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. It is doubtful that they actually will, but nevertheless this tension is symptomatic of the position the current Labour leadership has put the Labour movement in. GMB members are switching their support to the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Tories, according to general secretary Paul Kenny.



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Brown Snubs GMB | 31 comments (31 topical)

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#1)

by treborc on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM GMT

Yes but he will not say no to our money though, or work with straw to take our levy. Pathetic little bloke


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#2)

by lastword on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM GMT

Who the hell is advising Gordon Brown?!!!?!!?!


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#3)

by Eskimo Nell on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM GMT

SHOCK HORROR!!!

LABOUR LEADERSHIP IGNORES UNIONS/PARTY MEMBERSHIP.


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#4)

by serenitynow on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:09:53 PM GMT

Perhaps the GMB might be too busy when the Party comes cap in hand for some more cash.


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#5)

by otware on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM GMT

It amazes me how the man thinks he can fob off the unions even now, when Labour desperately needs union money.

btw serenitynow - is that from Seinfeld? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#6)

by serenitynow on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM GMT

It is - well spotted - feel free to call me *George*.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#7)

by otware on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:05:58 PM GMT

Or Frank? :p


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#8)

by syd4444 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM GMT

It is my belief that the Unions should give no more money to Labour and cut the party loose. As you all know Labour grew out of the trade union movement. As New Labour is embarrassed by the unions we should form new political party. We did it once, we can do it again.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:34:29 AM GMT

It is my belief that the Unions should give no more money to Labour and cut the party loose

Well I agree with this bit anyway. Time for state funding.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#12)

by otware on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:37:43 AM GMT

Why do you disagree with union funding?


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#15)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM GMT

I think parties should only be funded through state funds (through Nick Clegg's scheme of allowing each voter £3 a year of taxpayers money to give to a party of their choosing, or none at all) or small donations from party members.

I don't like the idea of unions paying for policies. We should work with the unions, but not in exchange for cash.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#13)

by Free Radical on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:19:59 AM GMT

Northern Monkey

I am completely opposed to further state funding (I think we have had this debate before... ) which would entrench a political elite at the expense of democracy (look at Italy). What we require is complete transparency, so people know exactly where party money comes from, and stringent limits on election spending.

Also, fortunately, I don't believe the public will ever accept increased state funding - despite the wishes of all the major parties to push it through.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#14)

by otware on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM GMT

We all know that the Tories want state funding to smash the unions yet again. Frankly I think that New Labour is sympathetic for the same reasons.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#16)

by jkitleft on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM GMT

Certain systems are better though. The system myself and NM have called for, is one used in Arizona and Maine. The politics became more transparent overnight. Global warming deniers were suddenly joining in, placing environmental regulations on businesses. Now, it's not completely the same in Britain. But we can't have proper taxes on the super-rich, for fear that donors will defect. By having a system whereby people give £3 to a party, we will have nationalised politicians, and they will be in the hands of public ownership.

If you are talking about a system where we simply hand bags of money to parties through taxes, then I wouldn't support it, but noone is suggesting this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#9)

by NB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM GMT

Unless someone bails Labour out the Party will be bankrupt - in less than 42 days.  Indeed anyone who is owed money can take steps to recover it from the Trustees. And I think bankruptcy means you cannot sit or vote in the House of Commons*.  Which might concentrate Gordon's mind a bit, as one of the Trustees...

 

* see http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections/by_elections.cfm 


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#10)

by otware on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:43:11 AM GMT

Interesting. Frankly I'm more concerned about Dennis Skinner being barred. But seriously though, this is very bad news =(


[ Parent ]

GMB hits back (#17)

by rwendland on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:15:59 PM GMT

GMB's response seems to be to cut funding to about 30 of 108 MP's CLPs - "MPs who had failed to support union policies, had not responded to requests for help or had not engaged with local branches."

Paul Kenny also says GMB will not help bail Labour out of debt: "No GMB members' money will be going to pay off loans that the Labour Party took from multimillionaires who now want their money back because, perhaps, the peerages they thought they might have got are not going to materialise." Is there wiggle room there to pay off Co-op bank debts? 


Re: GMB hits back (#18)

by otware on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:18:38 PM GMT

I thought that they refused to unless they got recongnition from Co-op Funeral Care? Seems bizarre that the Co-op would be anti-union...:s

My one worry is that if the unions abandon Labour, only temporarily, New Labour might abandon them once and for all. That would be a disaster for the Labour movement. 


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#19)

by rwendland on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:55:11 AM GMT

Oops, I'd momentarily forgotten about the GMB-Co-op Funeral Care dispute. It's worse than not giving recognition, it's the Co-op derecognising a 100+ year union agreement! Hard to see the GMB bailing out the Co-op bank just now.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#20)

by e10rifles on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM GMT

Absolute filth, the Coop management.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#22)

by alexhilton on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM GMT

I doubt that kind of language will encourage a rapproachement


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#24)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:49:19 AM GMT

Good thing I'm not involved in negotiations really. I don't know how I'd keep my temper.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#21)

by otware on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM GMT

This is appalling. My opinion of the Co-op brand has declined considerably.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#26)

by rwendland on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:15:31 PM GMT

In the interests of balance, and perhaps fairness, the Co-op case is presented in this press release.

Their argument essentially is they want to rationalise Union representation. GMB has less that 10% of Funeralcare workers, hardly any in the wider Co-op, and is not in the Co-op wide negotiating group:

  • GMB has the smallest membership (less than 10%) of Funeralcare's three main non-specialist unions and  has no significant representation in other Co-operative Group businesses.
  • "we actively encourage our staff to join unions and trade union membership ... However, the fact that we have three separate unions representing our general workforce can make business progress difficult."
  • the Co-operative Group [wishes] to establish a more coherent approach to union relationships within the organisation.
  • Funeralcare has around 2750 employees. Some 750 are members of USDAW, around 300 belong to TGWU, 260 to GMB, around 100 to the National Association of Co-operative Officials, the management union and 40 to UCATT, who work in the specialist areas of production and masonry. Across the Co-operative Group (including its Co-operative Financial Services subsidiary), USDAW has 20000 members, the TGWU around 1600 members and NACO 1500 members.
Dunno if that is a fair argument, but it does have a certain logic.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#27)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM GMT


Why is having three unions making "business progress" difficult? Is it because the GMB is doing a better job of sticking up for its members in the CoOp?

What those figures don't explain is that certain unions are stronger in certain grades and sectors of Funeralcare than others. If certain members wish to be members of one union rather than another, they must have their reasons for that, and an organisations which is part of the labour movement should respect that.


[ Parent ]

Re: GMB hits back (#28)

by otware on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM GMT

That does not explain why they did what they did.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#23)

by Wiseman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM GMT

As a member of the left and on the Executive of the Greater Manchester co-op I feel dialogue is needed and as I do support the GMB in this one, but would encourage both sides to talk

Wiseman


Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#25)

by otware on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM GMT

I think what's needed is members of the Co-op putting their foot down over this one. It's an abhomination and is obstructing more important issues - the future of the Labour Party, for example.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#29)

by LabourStill on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM GMT

It's not unusual for employers to recognise only unions with large memberships. My recollection is that GMB members at Congress House don't have recognition (they certainly didn't do in the past) because they don't have a large enough membership. So is the TUC anti-union?


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#30)

by e10rifles on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM GMT

I would be surprised if that is (still) true. The GMB seems to be the biggest union for TUPS staff.

And the point here is that the CoOp would much rather deal with the yellow USDAW.


[ Parent ]

Re: Brown Snubs GMB (#31)

by Wiseman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM GMT

Good point

John


Brown Snubs GMB | 31 comments (31 topical)