Monday, December 10, 2007
ICTU President launches scathing attack on NIPSA
ICTU President and Regional Secretary of UNISON, Patricia McKeown, has written to every UNISON member in the north criticising the actions of the NIPSA union leadership during the Classroom Assistants dispute. Accusing NIPSA of being in the grip of “a small political faction,” she accused the leadership of acting in a “dishonourable” manner and of making “hysterical and defammatory” remarks about UNISON. The development follows accusations by elements within NIPSA that UNISON and the GMB had ‘rigged’ their ballot which had resulted in both unions endorsing the offer presented by the Education Boards, following the Minister for Education’s intervention.
Chris Donnelly @ 07:20 PM
This whole situation goes from bad to worse. Let’s hope the bitterness is worked out quickly, though I doubt it.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:39 PMLet’s hope the bitterness is worked out quickly
Not if the SF shit-stirrers have their way.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:48 PMThat seems like a real conflict of interests for McKeown.
The letter to the ICTU asking for an investigation
McKeown can’t wear both her UNISON and ICTU hats during this and should remove herself from any ICTU aspect as she has already declared her hand for UNISON and against the NIPSA request. Something that would raise worries about her ability to be balanced in the ICTU.
Though as I expected NIPSA have once again played a terrible game.
(And if McKeown is talking about political links lets remember she was at the last SF Ard Fheis and has endorsed a decision that is very much to the liking of the SF Minister.)
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:51 PMRunciter,
I did think carefully about whether to comment or not, but this is a bad situation for the union movement, and any possibly of sweeping it under the carpet until it was sorted out has been removed by the actions of the unions involved. This letter may have been a bad idea, but I don’t think picketing Carlin House was a good idea either, never mind a lot of the other stuff that has going on.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:54 PMGari,
Carlin House?
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:56 PMIn fairness she was also at The Workers’ Party Northern Regional Conference. In her position I’m sure she attends a lot of political and other events. I suspect El Mat would be able to tell us she was at the SDLP conference for example, and may well have been at the FF one too. I do think there were other people in Unison this letter could have come from.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:57 PMThe NIC ICTU’s headquarters, named after Terry Carlin.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 08:59 PMGari,
Her position in the ICTU would have made me think she should have tried to calm the situation not add petrol to the fire. NIPSA made a valid request but in a poor way. The ICTU President then accusing a Union of being under political control against the members interests is a major allegation.
The main outcome is the workers lose. A bad series of events that’ll be lapped up by some.
Lets hope some cool heads come into play soon before further damage is done.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:04 PMGari,
Right. Another very bad move.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:05 PMany possibly of sweeping it under the carpet until it was sorted out has been removed by the actions of the unions
Who’s talking about ‘sweeping it under the carpet’?
I was thinking more along the lines of ‘not posting shit-stirring articles on Slugger’.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:12 PMFair enough runciter. As I said I can understand your position. But we need to think about whether the unionis themselves have handled the situation properly.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:19 PMBut we need to think about whether the unionis themselves have handled the situation properly.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:31 PMrunciter
Ahh, shooting the messenger, old boy….
Mark
Patricia McKeown would attend political gatherings of various colours in her position, so your off mark in suggesting she has somehow nailed her colours to Sinn Fein by virtue of the fact she attended an Ard Fheis.Her capacity as ICTU President should not dissuade her from refuting an attack from elements within another union. Indeed, McKeown intimates in the letter that she has taken the matter further through the ‘proper processes’ within the trade union movement.
No, the significance in this is very clearly in the fact that a leading figure within the trade union family has publicly hinted at what was not so privately accepted by most informed observers: namely, that the good ol’ Trots in NIPSA were hell bent on manufacturing an industrial dispute, and that they rejected a good offer not on the merits of the offer but as a result of a political agenda.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:55 PMRunciter,
Where should we be holding these debates as members of trade unions concerned for the future? We can talk within our own unions, but surely this shows the need for wider discussion. This thread may not have been posted with the best of intentions (and the time lag certainly suggests that to be the case) but this is an important issue. Should we just ignore it, or should we take the opportunity for a sensible debate?
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 09:55 PMThis thread may not have been posted with the best of intentions (and the time lag certainly suggests that to be the case)
Garibaldy
The letters only reached most households today, though I do note from the website link attached that the statement dates from earlier in the week. Now, do you really believe most union members check the website of their union regularly?Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 10:05 PMChris,
There was no attack - I’ve added the statements above. There was a request for the ICTU to clarify what counts as a majority in this situation, I don’t like how NIPSA have gone about raising the issue so publicly but it is an important point and it is very arguable that a majority have not accepted the offer as some are claiming.
And McKeown’s open letter of the two has much more intemperate language and unsubstantiated claims than the NIPSA one.
Like Gari and other supporters of the Union movement I’m mostly concerned about how this damages organised Labour and plays into the hands of those not particularly concerned with its well-being.
Hopefully cool heads settle the public shouting and address the issues at heart. Though in this case the workers’ best interests seem to be lost.
(the SF comment was to highlight how easy it is to make an allegation of political agenda, like your Trot comment and McKeown and now you have put no meat on the bones of that claim about a Union that had mass membership support for its actions)
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 10:06 PMChris,
Fair enough. Apologies. Though my union communicates by email rather than post, so such a statement would have been in the hands of members the same day.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 10:15 PMand now you have put no meat on the bones of that claim about a Union that had mass membership support for its actions.
Mark
How do you know the levels of support NIPSA had? Did they not refuse to ballot on the matter?McKeown is entitled to employ intemperate language, given that it was her union being publicly accused by elements within NIPSA of vote-rigging.
As for the political agenda comments, people will reach their own conclusions about the agenda of those involved, as I have done.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 10:30 PMChris,
I searched for that ‘vote rigging’ claim when you first made it, couldn’t find it, still can’t, can you point me to it.
I do see a request to investigate the balloting mechanism/results to ascertain if a majority of Assistants accepted the offer or not. That’s a reasonable request, it’s very possible the smaller Unions with a low turnout could have returned an acceptance vote based on well short of 50% of Assistants. That isn’t a claim of impropriety though just a request for clarification on what was actually delivered by the other ballots, if say it was only 10% of Assistants forcing through an acceptance due to the bargaining mechanism that’s a big issue, if they delivered a real majority that’d be clarified by any ICTU investigation.
And as for intemperate language, McKeown as the head of the ICTU should know better and act in a more comradely manner even when in disagreement IMO.
The workers still lose out. Result for some.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 10:49 PMSpare us the body snatching Trots who are so deviously clever they can manipulate ordinary workers so easily. A bit old hat if not insulting to rank and file Trade Unionists. If that is the best some brothers and sisters can do it is hardly surprising the recent problems have occurred.
If there are differences they should be argued through in a democratic manner, not reduced to a rerun of early Comintern conflagrations.
Posted by on Dec 10, 2007 @ 11:05 PMNIPSA made a valid request but in a poor way
Posted by on Dec 11, 2007 @ 04:38 AMAhh, shooting the messenger, old boy….
No. Just highlighting the messenger’s agenda.
Posted by on Dec 11, 2007 @ 06:43 AM‘If that is the best some brothers and sisters can do it is hardly surprising the recent problems have occurred.
If there are differences they should be argued through in a democratic manner’
Yeah put the comrades, sorry brothers and sisters, in Big Brother House. Will we witness argument in a democratic manner or Fractious vanity? I know where I’ll put my wager.
on another note, can anyone enlighten (within the bounds of UK libel and slander laws) just what/who is ‘the same small political faction which appears to be in control of NIPSA’s decision making- machinery’ refered to by McKeown?
thanks
Posted by on Dec 11, 2007 @ 07:24 AMGood work Chris.
But did you ever think it would come to this - encouraging dissent between Irish Trade Unions?
Posted by on Dec 11, 2007 @ 09:15 AMSo NIPSA is “in the grip of a small political faction,”
And there was me thinking we were all in the grip of a small political faction - ALL unions who seem to think we should dance to their tune when they dress demands for bigger pay packets up as somehow being for the benefit of pupils/patients/the community at large (delete as appropriate).
Posted by on Dec 11, 2007 @ 09:33 AM
