Fiesta y reunion anual general (AGM), sábado 26 de abril — April 2, 2014

Fiesta y reunion anual general (AGM), sábado 26 de abril

agm_posters_Page_2Todos los miembros del IWGB, sus amigos, y familias estan invitados a celebrar el primer aniversario de nuestra rama en ULU (Malet St, London WC1E 7HY)!

Invitada especial Natalie Bennett, el líder del partido verde.

Vengan a la reunion anual general (AGM) del sindicato donde pueden elegir los oficiales para el proximo ano, escuchar discursos de miembros del parlamento y líderes sindicales, disfrutar comida y bebida gratis y celebrar en la fiesta con musica y baile hasta tarde.
Habre guardería para los ninos.

AGM: 3PM-5.30PM
FIESTA: 6PM TILL LATE

AGM and Fiesta – Saturday 26 April 2014 —

AGM and Fiesta – Saturday 26 April 2014

agm_posters_Page_1All IWGB members, friends and family are invited to celebrate our branch’s 1st birthday at ULU on Saturday 26 April!

Come to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) where you can elect officers for the next year, listen to speeches from MPs and union leaders, enjoy free food and drink and celebrate at the Latino fiesta with music and dancing till late.

All members will receive invitations soon.

Creche facilities will be provided.

AGM: 3PM-5.30PM
FIESTA: 6PM TILL LATE

Summer volunteer position at the IWGB — April 1, 2014

Summer volunteer position at the IWGB

volunteerThe IWGB  is  looking for an enthusiastic person who is committed to improving working conditions at the University of London to fill our volunteer position for 2-3 days a week for the summer from 15th of May – 31st of July.

Ideally you will have

  • been an active member of a union or have knowledge of the trade union movement
  • previous exposure to case work would be desirable
  • some knowledge of employment law
  • knowledge of MS Office
  • we have a large Latin American membership so Spanish would be a plus!
  • any graphic design knowledge will be a bonus and we ask that you bring your own laptop

Hopefully the successful applicant will get a lot out of this role – both in terms of helping work with a grassroots, campaigning union and in the skills, confidence and contacts we’d hope to help you develop.

See here for full details and how to apply.

Letter re future of Garden Halls from Daniel Cooper, ULU Vice-President — March 27, 2014

Letter re future of Garden Halls from Daniel Cooper, ULU Vice-President

cooperDear University of London,

As Vice President of the University of London Union (ULU), I am writing to you to express our concerns about future job losses owing to this summer’s upcoming refurbishment at the Garden Halls of residence.

Since the refurbishments were announced in 2013, workers at the Garden Halls have been living in a state of uncertainty about their futures. This uncertainty has been compounded by the fact that the University of London has refused to enter into negotiations with the trade union which represents the vast majority of Garden Halls staff, the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB).

Since then, we have seen five days of industrial action across two periods (in November 2013 and January 2014), in which workers’ grievances over the Garden Halls jobs figured centrally. We stress that these strikes where wholly avoidable, and happened due to the University’s continuing failure to get around the negotiating table. In so far as any of our members experienced disruption, it is understood by students that it is solely due to the intransigence of the University and of Cofely GDF-Suez.

The workers have made two reasonable demands, which we ask you to consider and respond to. Firstly, that Garden Halls workers be re-allocated within the University of London as vacancies arise; secondly, that this is operated on the basis of a seniority system.

We see no reason why uncertainty should continue any longer, nor why the University does not negotiate with the IWGB – the only trade union in the Garden Halls which a genuine claim to represent the staff there.

ULU will continue to speak to Garden Halls students about the situation and we would appreciate an update and clarification from the University of London.

Regards,

Daniel Cooper

Vice President of the University of London Union (ULU)

Response to Cofely letter to IWGB members on recognition —

Response to Cofely letter to IWGB members on recognition

downloadDear Mr. Baker,

You have recently responded to letters written by your employees requesting that Cofely recognise the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) on the University of London contract (https://iwgb-universityoflondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/letter.jpg).  The IWGB represents the majority of workers on the University of London contract.  In your letter you explain why Cofely will continue to recognise UNISON, the main reason being that the current recognition supposedly does not allow you to recognise or engage with any other union.  Having read your letter a couple times, I can’t help but wonder if you have even read the UNISON Recognition Agreement?  On the off chance you haven’t, or perhaps if you have gotten it confused with a different recognition agreement, you can read it here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5bXblPVqizeUy1lVjkyWTdUZjQ/edit.

In the fourth paragraph of your letter you say that this Recognition Agreement is “binding” and that it doesn’t allow “recognition, consultation or negotiation with any other Unions who may have a presence on the University of London contract.”  Unfortunately you are wrong on both accounts.  I would draw your attention to section 4.1 of the Recognition Agreement which says: “The Company and the Union accept that the terms of this agreement are binding in honour upon them but do not constitute a legally enforceable agreement.”  In the currently legalistic world of industrial relations, “binding in honour” is about as uncommitted as an agreement can be, perhaps one step up from a “pinky-swear”.  Indeed when we all used to be in UNISON and attempted to try and use that Recognition Agreement for the benefit of workers, facilities time or other requests were often denied because it was a voluntary recognition agreement or there were other considerations.  In other words: it wasn’t legally binding.

In terms of the claim that you cannot engage with another union, the Recognition Agreement does not mention- anywhere- other unions.  This claim simply is not true.  However it is quite telling of your industrial strategy: to hide behind the UNISON Recognition Agreement in order to provide an excuse to the public and workers for why you don’t recognise the union that clearly has the membership, support, and trust of the majority of the workforce.  The fact that UNISON is willing (even eager?) to provide this cover for you says quite a bit about where this union’s priorities lie.  Your company has already made clear to us- in those negotiations you are supposedly not allowed to have- the real reason for not wanting to recognise the IWGB: you don’t like that our union engages in formal procedures such as grievances, employment tribunals, and strikes, and that we cite employment law in our emails.  I realise that based on your experience with UNISON at Senate House you may have formed the impression that unions exist in order to rubber-stamp management plans or to collude with management on how to undermine workers’ campaigns (for more on this read the recent Guardian article which tells how UNISON suggested to University of London management that offering one additional day’s leave might be enough to undermine the 3 Cosas Campaign: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/24/cost-private-contracts-universities-documents-services-workers).  However, in the IWGB we believe that unions are there to defend the rights of members and to actively campaign on improving wages, terms, and conditions.

In the sixth paragraph of your letter you say that the relationship with UNISON is long-standing and attribute to this relationship the recent improvement in workers’ sick pay, holiday, and pension entitlements.  Putting aside for the moment the fact that the Recognition Agreement is less than three years old, it is interesting to note that you have taken a page out of UNISON’s strategy book with regard to re-writing history.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that tactic has been tried and tested and it hasn’t worked yet.  Indeed, the letter from BBW after the strike in November, 2013, which attributed the victory on terms and conditions to UNISON, played a large part in motivating workers to strike again at the end of January, this time for three days.  The main reason for that strike was union recognition, the need for which was driven home by the constant and blatant collaboration between the company and the currently recognised union.  It is also worth pointing out that the people you are writing to all used to be members of UNISON.  Their 3 Cosas Campaign was unsupported by UNISON.  Their votes were cancelled by UNISON.  They decided to leave UNISON.  They have participated in IWGB protests, strikes, and/or campaign meetings.  Improved terms and conditions were announced on the second day of their IWGB strike action.  And the current UNISON workplace rep is their boss’s boss, who they never voted for.  So they might not be the easiest people to convince that the company’s partnership with UNISON is what gave rise to their improved conditions.

In closing, it is perhaps worth drawing your attention to section 11.1 of the Recognition Agreement which states: “It is agreed that there will be an annual review of this agreement by both parties to ensure it remains relevant and effective.”  Of course, this agreement has been quite effective from the perspective of both Cofely management and UNISON.  It helps Cofely management avoid engagement with their own workforce and the corresponding reps.  And it allows UNISON to claim one of the biggest victories for outsourced workers in the higher education sector in recent years.  However, given that the majority of the workforce is in the IWGB, nearly all of the IWGB members have chosen to leave UNISON, there are only a handful of UNISON members left and these are dominated by supervisors and managers, the UNISON workplace rep is the Cleaning Services Manager, and the recent revelation that UNISON was colluding with UoL management to undermine the 3 Cosas Campaign, I must say that from the perspective of the workers, it is difficult to imagine an agreement that could be less “relevant and effective”.

The final clause of the Recognition Agreement states: “This is a joint Recognition Agreement.  Either The Company or the Union may terminate this agreement by giving no less than six months’ notice in writing to the other party.”  I’m not sure how much longer UNISON and Cofely will continue to repeat the same tactics and lies, but at some point I am sure you will come to see how counter-productive they are.  In the mean time our members and your workforce will continue to campaign until you recognise the union which actually represents them.

Kind regards,

Jason Moyer-Lee

Response to Senate House UNISON’s claims over outsourced workers — March 26, 2014

Response to Senate House UNISON’s claims over outsourced workers

Senate_House_UnisonDear Dave,

You have recently written a blog post on behalf of UNISON Senate House Branch, entitled “Terms and Conditions: Success at Last!”  In this post you announce (4 months late) the fact that Cofely workers now have up to 6 months sick pay and 25 days holiday.  You then attribute this victory to UNISON activists, negotiations and campaigning.  This post is so ridiculous I seriously considered whether it was even worth responding to, however given that some uninformed individuals might read it, I guess it is important to set some facts straight.  Given that nearly every sentence is either enormously misleading or just a blatant lie, I would ask you in advance to bear with me on the tedious nature of the task at hand.

You begin the post by saying “negotiations took months of meetings”.  That may be true, however what you leave out is the fact that the negotiations were conducted in secret and without the consultation or consent of the outsourced workers.  But most importantly, the negotiations were being used by UNISON officials to undermine the outsourced workers’ 3 Cosas Campaign.  Indeed a Guardian article which came out yesterday (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/24/cost-private-contracts-universities-documents-services-workers) revealed that UNISON had told the University of London that they were keen to “counter” the campaign and even suggested that if the University were to offer up just one additional day’s annual leave that that could “suffice” to shut the cleaners up.

You go on to say that the campaign was the product of combined efforts of Senate House and London Region UNISON activists.  That’s true, until of course, all the Senate House UNISON activists left UNISON in disgust in March, 2013 after UNISON invalidated an election on technicalities in order to prevent pro- 3 Cosas Campaign candidates from winning.  When we all left we created a new branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) where we have been for nearly a year.  We are now the biggest union at the University of London Central Administration, and represent a majority of Cofely employees.  There are only a handful of outsourced workers who are still UNISON members and these are dominated by managers and supervisors.  And sorry to be nit-picky on the details, but the announcement on terms and conditions was made on the afternoon of the second day of a strike by IWGB outsourced workers.

You then go on to say “leaflets were sent, campaign funds were spent, protests were held”.  This is all true, but you do leave out a few points.  UNISON paid for absolutely nothing.  Not one p.  In a branch committee meeting in November of 2012 we presented a budget for the campaign of just over £2,200.  We had enough votes on committee to pass the budget but Simon Meredith, Vice-Chair of the branch, with the support of Tony Mabbott, a UNISON London Region official, refused to allow a vote.  Various committee members called for a vote but the vote was blocked and the “leaders” stormed out of the room.  Not only did UNISON not pay for leaflets, but the UNISON London Region official tried to stitch up the previous Communications Officer (who was a key player in the London Living Wage and 3 Cosas Campaigns) by telling the University of London that the printing bill he had racked up for the union was his personal responsibility and he therefore owed UoL a lot of money.  This is despite the fact that all his printing had been democratically approved at committee meetings- but UNISON and democracy have a difficult relationship.  And with regard to the protests, yes protests were held but the Senate House Branch “leadership” was glaring in its absence.  Furthermore, Maggi Ferncombe, the UNISON London Region manager, sent out public letters distancing UNISON from the protests.  University and Cofely management then put these up on notice boards and used them to discredit the campaign.

You say that there were some hiccups with the new contracts and that these were brought to management’s attention through UNISON reps.  It is true that there were some problems and the IWGB brought these to the attention of management.  Of course there is one UNISON rep who likely brought some of these issues up.  That would be Sharon Bracey, the UNISON workplace rep for Cofely who is also the Cleaning Services Manager, in charge of roughly 140 cleaners and porters.  She initiates disciplinary procedures against cleaners, puts people on 0 hours contracts, etc.  And yes, she is the best person UNISON could find to be a workplace rep.  I’m sorry to point out the blatantly obvious, but when workers raise contract concerns with her they are not doing so because she is a UNISON rep, but rather because she is their boss.

Your closing lines, where you congratulate the cleaners on their hard work and claim credit for the victory are so disdainfully hypocritical that it defies common sense to think you can write something like that and not be challenged on it.  In sum, it is probably worthwhile for the UNISON Senate House branch to do some reflection on why it has lost nearly all its low paid members, all of its activists, and a large contingent of direct employees.  What’s left of UNISON at Senate House is now run by a collection of managers, pathological liars, and unelected autocratic bureaucrats masquerading as a union.  As far as I can tell the plan for building this organisation appears to be based on selling subsidized car insurance, broken promises, and a re-writing of history that would make Stalin proud.  Good luck!

-Jason Moyer-Lee

 

Guardian revelations on University of London outsourcing and UNISON collusion with management — March 25, 2014

Guardian revelations on University of London outsourcing and UNISON collusion with management

Cleaner from 3Cosas campaignOn 28 February this year, students protested outside Senate House in the University of London. A small group somehow got into the office of the vice-chancellor, Adrian Smith. While there, they took a cache of documents. I have seen two, and they that reveal a dark underside to one of the most contentious aspects of higher education.

Read Aditya Chakrabortty’s full article here.

UoL directly-employed workers’ drop-ins — March 21, 2014

UoL directly-employed workers’ drop-ins

hthompsonHannah Thompson is our new University of London direct employees rep, and if there are any issues you’d like to raise face-to-face with the union, or if you are not yet a member of IWGB but would like more information, you are welcome to come to our weekly drop-in sessions. Hannah and other officers will be in the Institute of Education bar every Tuesday lunch, 12:30-1:30.

Student criticises University of London for £800 fine after Senate House chalk protest —

Student criticises University of London for £800 fine after Senate House chalk protest

Kons2A student today hit out at the University of London after she was prosecuted for scrawling chalk on a building during a demonstration over staff  pay.

Konstancja Duff, 25, was arrested, ordered to pay an £810 fine and given a three-month conditional discharge after writing slogans in coloured chalk during a protest for the rights of cleaning staff.

Read full story here.