GMB23: defending a new deal for workers

Congress Composite C11 concerned Labour’s “A new deal for working people”. Hours before, Starmer had promised that this would be legislated for in the first 100 days. The motion, or the part of it that comes from London Region was designed to make it clear that there must be no backtracking and that the weaknesses in the proposals must be remedied. You can find Labour’s Policy statement here., the new deal for workers starts on P18 and cross references the green paper.

In my speech, see below or watch the video, I said,

The best defence against poor working conditions and low wages is a strong union movement, it has been since the Labour Party’s foundation that political and legislative programmes are also needed. There are many wrongs in UK employment protection law, and those members whose cases I help manage are often deeply upset that Britain the home of “fair play” has so few remedies for the poor treatment that they are suffering.

These are good documents but we need to ensure that the promises make it into a manifesto and into Government.

Apart from the failure to promise the repeal of pre-2016 trade union laws, the major disappointment is that the New Deal document promise on the minimum wage is unlikely to increase it. GMB policy is that this must be £15 per hour, we must reiterate this. The document is also sadly silent on statutory sick pay and redundancy compensation. It is necessary to rectify these injustices. The motion was carried, with qualification.

As in my other reports on GMB Congress, I have reproduced the motion, the qualification and the notes for my speech, which are below/overleaf. …

Motion

Composite 11, “Defending a New Deal for Workers”

Congress notes and welcomes that in Labour’s “A new deal for working people” they say they will strengthen the protections afforded to all workers by banning zero-hours contracts, outlawing bogus self-employment; and ending qualifying periods for basic rights, which leave working people waiting up to two years for basic protections. This will include unfair dismissal, sick pay, and parental leave, giving working people under Labour rights at work from day one.”

Congress further notes and welcomes that the document states that “Restrictions on union activity are holding back living standards and the economy. We will update trade union legislation so it is fit for a modern economy and empower working people to collectively secure fair pay, terms and conditions.” It also states that “Unions have been subjected to increasingly restrictive rules, most recently in the Trade Union Act 2016, which included arbitrary thresholds in industrial action ballots; complicated balloting and notice rules designed to make industrial action and union organising more difficult; and new restrictions on pickets.”

We note the union’s policy extends to

1. campaigning against any further weakening of employment and trade union rights and to engage with its Parliamentary Group to ensure their support for these policies. Furthermore, we oppose any Government proposals to opt out of EU regulations and social and employment protections for workers as proposed by the EU retained laws bill or to further restrict the right to strike in the Strike (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.

2. The right to organise industrial action, including solidarity action and action for broader social and political demands, without the threat of legal proceedings by employers and for workers taking lawful industrial action to be protected from dismissal.

3. The right to choose freely how to decide on industrial action, including by workplace ballots and other means, with the abolition of restrictive balloting and industrial action notice procedures.

4. To secure these and other rights, repeal of all anti-trade union laws, not just the most recent ones.

We welcome Labour’s commitments to repeal anti-union laws; we affirm our call for this to mean repeal of all anti-union/anti-strike laws.

We welcome Labour’s promise to meet the GMB’s policy of full employment rights from day one of employment.

We note GMB’s current policy that the National Minimum Wage should be at least £15 an hour and that Labour’s “A fair deal …” promises only £10, which is now lower than the real living wage and only 40p higher than the national minimum wage.

We note that GMB’s current policy is to call for fundamental reform of Statutory Sick Pay so that no worker is forced to come into work when they are sick. It may be appropriate to calculate SSP on the basis of GMB’s call for a Real Living Wage of at least £15 an hour, or on a proportion of average earnings.

We note the GMB policy on redundancy consultation and calls for the repeal of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation Act 1992) Order and restore redundancy consultations for large scale redundancies to 90 days to be part of Labour’s manifesto.

We instruct the General Secretary & CEC to campaign for these demands to be in the next Labour Manifesto and for GMB delegates to the NPF, Annual Conference, & Clause V meetings, together with all GMB sponsored MPs/PPCs to ensure that these policies are placed in the manifesto.

The Qualification

SUPPORT WITH QUALIFICATION: GMB union was involved in the process of negotiating the contents of Labour Party’s New Deal for Working People in 2021 and as the motion suggests it contains many commitments for a future Labour government around individual and collective employment rights as detailed in the motion. We are making clear that new collective and trade union rights will be a priority for us in regards to manifesto negotiations. Securing a clear commitment in a future Labour Party manifesto that makes it clear that in government the Party will legislate on new trade union and collective rights as well as repealing anti-trade union laws is vital. We however ask that Congress recognises that negotiations around the Party’s manifesto GMB however needs to respond and be agile around priorities.

My speech

President, Congress, Dave Levy London Region moving Composite 11, “Defending a New Deal for Workers”.

The best defence against poor working conditions and low wages is a strong union movement, it has been since the Labour Party’s foundation that political and legislative programmes are also needed.

There are many wrongs in UK employment protection law, and those members whose cases I help manage are often deeply upset that Britain the home of “fair play” has so few remedies for the poor treatment that they are suffering.

Labours “A new deal for working people” is an important statement of the Labour Party’s intent to rebalance the scales and I congratulate those GMB activists and officers that participated in its development, and it includes important commitments meeting long standing GMB policy.

The document proposes the repeal of anti-trade union laws, and the motion calls on GMB’s sponsored MPs to continue to oppose further restrictions inc. the EU revocation and reform laws and the Strike  Minimum Services Bill.

GMB policy includes calling for lifting the restrictions on solidarity action, and for broader social and political aims.

GMB policy calls for Unions to be able to choose how they consult their members on industrial action.

We welcome the commitment to establish employment rights on day one, and note that Labour’s National Policy Forum repeats this commitment; the two documents also promise to abolish zero hour contracts.

These are good documents but we need to ensure that the promises make it into a manifesto and into Government.

The major disappointment is that the New Deal document promise on the minimum wage is unlikely to increase it. and we must note that the Tories have stolen the “living wage” label and apply it to the minimum wage. GMB policy is that this must be £15 per hour, we must reiterate this.

I do a lot of personal case work; that experience has allowed me to see the inadequacy of statutory sick pay and redundancy compensation. Promises to rectify these injustices would be welcome.

The NPF report is also weaker on Trade Union rights than GMB policy, GMB should be looking to push Labour to do better. The continued use of a specific and limited list raises fears that Labour’s leadership’s growing reputation for flexibility, will mean we don’t get whet we need and what is right.

The purpose of the motion is to restate our position and to increase the negotiating power of our representatives in Labour’s policy making process.

London Region have agreed to accept the CEC qualification and while we accept the need for agility [within Labour’s policy making processes], the reason for moving the motion and hopefully passing it is to establish our demands; I am assured that the policy department ensures that policy is known by our representatives, but agility must not become supine compromise.

I move.