GMB Congress 2019 is a rules revision conference and one important rule change passed earlier in the week was to restrict the number of motions and rule amendments that a single branch can propose to three motions and two rule amendments.
One of our delegation spoke against the rule change arguing that restricting the number of motions would diminish Congress because branches would be choosing not to send motions, the difficulty that large branches with multiple employers in representing all their members was mentioned. A video of the debate is here.
On reflection, the idea that 2500 motions would be proposed is foolish, there were 435 motions on the order paper when there was no restriction. (I understand that one branch put in a shed load, but they obviously thought it important.)
I would add that, since the CEC, through its power to recommend “support with qualification” can uniquely move amendments to every motion, this change (of restricting a branch’s voice) will increase the CEC’s power over the agenda and the results. Also the CEC can table non emergency business, as special reports after the closing date for motions and so amending these is procedurally difficult. No system is perfect, but I agree that this is a retrograde rule change. …