lifting lid
Lifting the Lid On the NEC
Part I
I am now in my forth year on the NEC and I was recently honoured by being re-elected for a further three years term by the membership. The one glaring deficiency that I have noticed since being on the Executive is the lack of understanding of what at national level is actually done, and how much apparent mystique is inherent within our structure. I promised myself that if re-elected I would attempt to lift the lid on the NEC. That is not meant in any clandestine way or to even cause any trouble. I simply believe you the membership have a right to know what your national officials do and how your branch officials fit into that equation.
Apart from the General Secretary (GS) and the Deputy General Secretary (DGS) the entire Executive, are serving Prison Officers who are seconded full time to the union. The DGS and the GS are employed directly by the POA. The entire Executive is elected for between three and five years by the whole membership. In my experience there is a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance regarding the Executive by the membership, which I believe is not a healthy situation for the union as a whole.
Between the Executive there are three main functions that are performed. They are running the union and maintaining its integrity, providing individual, area and national representation to each establishment as required, and conducting industrial relations collectively on behalf of the union. This is no easy feat and as can be seen is of significant interest to you the membership. Generally there will only be three occasions when members who are not branch officials will have contact with the Executive, these are when you need individual representation of some description, when a member of the Executive is addressing a branch meeting or when a member of the Executive is walking around an establishment. This does not allow individual members to yield any great influence at national level, or on national policy. That has to come primarily through your branch officials and in particular your Branch Secretary and your Branch Chair.
Our union primarily works via policies being made at our annual conference and then being progressed by the Executive. Your locally elected officials voting on your behalf pass policies at conference. How many of you can honestly say that you read the conference agenda which is published each year in the Gatelodge and then attempt to influence your branch officials by mandating them to vote in a certain manner. Furthermore, how many of you have ever attempted to place a motion on the order paper for conference or would even know how to do it. In reality, very few non-branch officials ever concern themselves with national issues or annual conference, yet the policies that are passed will directly effect your remuneration and your terms and conditions of employment.
Two big issues that affect you at this present time are performance testing and privatisation, yet at this year’s annual conference these issues collectively took up no more than ten minutes, in contrast to a contractual issue in relation to one individual that took up in excess of three hours. I use this as merely an example to show how each individual member can influence representation. I believe that you the membership need to be part of the decision making process and not an unaware silent majority.
At national level it is sometimes difficult to judge the true feelings of the membership and we do rely on your branch officials for our steer. This does occasionally result in policies being passed that the membership do not actually want. An example of this would be contract hours that conference decided not to have anything to do with yet the majority of the membership did them or are doing them, which technically is in contravention to POA policy. Should a policy exist if the majority of the membership do not agree with it? The simple answer is no but if your branch officials are not told your views they have to make subjective decisions based on debates as they occur. It is essential that the POA passes policies that are popular and not populist. You may say what has this got to do with the NEC.
In reality it is how you can understand the Executive and so influence our policy. Our union has a democratic structure and is extremely oligarchical in make up. That simply means the few making decisions for the many. Our society in general operates in this way and it is a socially sound way to operate, but what it really means is the Executive is generally representative of conference and not the membership specifically, as has been shown by the adoption of past policies. The POA has a turnover in excess of five million pounds a year, which the Executive manages. It is my view that if you understand the Executive you understand the union and you are more willing to be part of the decision making process. The Executive does have to make decisions based on the greater good so your input is important.
You the membership decide nationally who represents you nationally and I believe that is just and fair. Yet most of the membership is expected to decide who manages the union and represents you on a few lines written in an election address where in reality the candidate can unconditionally promise the world. The only answer to that is for you to make yourself aware of the wider national union, then if the unachievable is promised then you would know.
The decision making process internal to the Executive is not a simple issue. You cannot put together a group of generally highly principled, opinionated and vocal individuals without there being disagreement, but through disagreement consensus is reached. When as a union we all agree with each other, the union has ceased to exist. The problems we as a union have had to overcome in our recent past revolve around individuals not being able to follow the consensus. Any person that will pursue individual goals over the collective is not a trade unionist.
It is my intention to do a series of articles looking at all aspects of your NEC and how they work. I hope this article has given you a brief insight into the way our union works and the responsibilities inherent within the Executive. I also hope it has raised more questions that it has answered.
Steve Gough
N E C
In this second article I thought it was essential to lift the lid on Annual Conference. The most important statement I could make about Annual Conference to open this article is that the POA Annual Conference is yours, it is not the Executives and it is not Branch Officials, it belongs to every single member of this union. I do not believe that most of the membership understands the importance of the decisions that are made at Annual Conference or the direct effect that those decisions have on your working lives. I do not mean that in a derogatory way, I just do not believe Conference has ever been explained fully to all the membership.
The purpose of Conference is three-fold. The first purpose is to update and change our rules and constitution, as and when necessary. The rules and constitution are our internal rules and procedures that we all have to live by. How many of you can actually say you have read them or even know what constitutional changes were debated and changed at this year’s Conference. How many of you know how your branch officials voted on the constitutional motions on this year’s Conference order paper. How many of you saw Conference on the agenda of your Branch meeting and did not bother to go. As a member of the POA not only are you in a sense a part owner but you also have contractual implications to consider within the context of the service you pay for with your subscriptions. Changes to the constitution have a direct and real impact on the service you receive, which is in reality a multi million pound service. The changes made to the constitution this year did alter the service you pay for with your subscriptions.
A copy of the updated rules and constitution are in your local POA office. Within them many aspects of our union are explained. Your rights both locally and nationally are set out and how the membership sits along side those rules. I would advise all of you to take a look at the rules either now or when the new diary is issued. They are important. If you believe the constitution should be changed or added to, then consider proposing changes to your committee, for next year’s Conference.
The second purpose of Conference is to set the policy of the union for a minimum of two years. The policy of the POA will, have a direct and real consequence on your working lives and your remuneration package. I believe I was very lucky as a Branch official in my early years at Conference. I had a very experienced Branch Chair sitting along side me to help guide and advise on the greater implications of the decisions made at Conference. I remember on one occasion an extremely emotive and convincing debate occurred which convinced me to vote in a particular way. Voting card in hand I was poised to raise it at the appropriate time but as a team member I leaned across to my Branch Chair and whispered we’re for this aren’t we. “No” came the stern reply, “why” I inquisitively asked, “Because the members would not want us to and that is who we are here to represent not our selves”. I sat back and pondered on what I had been told and I suddenly realised how wrong I had been. From that moment to this whenever I have to act on the POA’s behalf I always bear those poignant words in mind.
The moral to that story is not a slight on any branch official but a criticism to an unavoidable system. The oligarchic system that unions use does on occasions allow decisions to be made by the few that the majority do not agree with. There is an answer to the dilemma which is simply members becoming involved in advising their branch officials before they go to Conference on the Conference motions. It is vitally important that members do become more fully involved with the decision making process. The anecdotal stories of no members turning up for branch meetings where Conference is to be discussed are wide spread and sometimes true. Unions can only operate in an efficient manner if the membership are involved in the making of our policy. The policy that Annual Conference produces is in part the NEC’s workload for the coming year. It is what we strive to achieve and if the policy does not mirror the greater will of the membership then the membership could suffer.
The third purpose of Annual Conference is to publicise and sell the POA. That may not sound important but with politicians speaking and important decisions being made the press are interested in running stories about us. The impression we give at Conference sets the populist media view of the POA for the coming year. It is important to stress the POA is you and the media will act as such. It has to be said that the internal arguments that have plagued our Conference over recent years has had a real and adverse effect on our reputation. The Prison Service will openly admit that they thoroughly enjoy the squabbling and power struggling that have become a sad but inherent part of our great Conference.
I was elected recently pledging that I would work to rid the POA of the personal politics that oozes from us like a cancer and that must start with Conference. The members we represent are highly professional hard working people who need to have a Conference that reflects that position. Conference must work hard to represent the interests of 35,000 people who deserve no less. I have to be honest and say I have been embarrassed by the blatant attempt by some people to use Conference to wage individual wars and protect misguided friendships.
There are some incredibly important issues that affect all of you on the table at the moment. They include performance testing, performance improvement plans, staffing levels, overcrowding and de-skilling, and the list goes on. Is it right that none of those issues could be debated fully at Conference due to lack of time, which was a direct result of half a day of Conference time being taken up by one employee’s employment issues. Whilst that issue was important to a few delegates it was not important to the majority of the membership, which is what Conference is there for. You the membership place your trust in the National Executive Committee to manage the union, yet at Conference a few delegates deliberately attempt to destabilise the union in pursuit of personal politics.
I know that my words are strong and some may even think unfair, but they are a fact. Many of you will not know what some delegates accused the Executive of being. I take no pleasure in reciting these comments but I feel you all need to know. The Gestapo, and the Klu Klux Klan, were two comments. We were accused of stealing the rings off your fingers, and also spending three years doing nothing. The days of the outside world thinking we are a joke must end. The time is now on us when we must change and modernise. We must give you the membership the union back and make our Conference the professional stage piece I was proud to be a part of when I started. I would not name the bitter members that I have recited above but we must not allow individuals to hijack our Conference ever again.
I hope I have given you all food for thought on a subject that could take up a whole edition of the Gatelodge, please grab hold of your union and take it back. I and most of the Executive want to serve 35,000 members, not just a few.
STEVE GOUGH
N E C
Lifting the Lid On the NEC
Part III
Colleagues, in this third article, I thought felt it was worth recapping on the previous two articles and take an overview of the major issue that has faced the Union recently, and which the NEC had to take decisive and positive action on. I would like to thank all the members and branch officials who have taken the time to write to me on the articles, passing comment and thanking me for being so honest. I can assure everyone who reads the Gatelodge that I will be undeterred by personal attacks and will continue to give you, the membership, my view of the Union at national level. I believe you deserve to be informed on the national scene, warts and all.
The Gatelodge magazine for February contained a couple of letters from branch officials who clearly were unhappy that I had made comment on the running of the POA Annual Conference as I did. I will, once again, reaffirm every word I wrote in the December edition of Gatelodge and state for the record that there was not one falsehood or non-honest belief contained within that article and I will continue this series of articles, however unpalatable some POA members may feel that is.
I am a committed trade unionist and I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I have never entered into any personal attack on anyone in my life and anyone I have felt the necessity to challenge has always had the right of reply. A previous writer said that he could not condone the personal attacks that occurred at Annual Conference 2003. I will, once again, give my view regarding the actions of any official or member of the POA who believes it is right or correct to personally attack members of the National Executive Committee of this Union, or anyone else for that matter, at a prestigious event such as our Annual Conference. I believe that it is a disgraceful, unprofessional and despicable act that should not and cannot be allowed to happen again. If we, as a Union, disagree with each other’s views, or need to debate issues, then this is the forum to raise anything that warrants a right of reply, or through a properly constituted motion. Annual Conference should only be used to formulate our policy and direction and rectify wrongs from the previous year.
The Executive, or any other collective democratic body, is not infallible; we have and will continue to make mistakes. The mistakes we make are never with intention of wrongdoing, and usually due to a subjective democratic decision that needed to be made. I do not believe anyone expects computerised decision making from the Executive, what you do expect is that we admit when an action or lack of action has been shown to be incorrect and that when a decision is made at whatever level we, as a collective body, move that policy forward.
The POA has recently come through its first nationally organised industrial dispute in the Union’s history. The significance of that series of events and the impact to the future of this Union cannot be under-estimated. The National Executive Committee were placed in a situation where POA members’ lives were being placed in jeopardy by our current Government’s actions in Northern Ireland. The criminalising of our ability to effect industrial sanctions have had a dramatic, and never before seen, affect on the attitudes of our employers and the Government. I believe the ability to impose the will of management on Prison Service staff without, once again, the right of collective reply had gathered momentum since the placing on the statute books of Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We have been a toothless tiger, extremely effective up until the point where action needed to be taken, but unable to act in a collective manner due to the legislation. The employer has believed that whatever the consequences the doctrine of “management have the right to manage” is right whatever the consequences. How can management be right if lives may be lost? This Union and I, do not believe they can and that is why the POA had to intervene.
The Union entered into exhaustive negotiations but, unfortunately, those negotiations failed to rectify the wrongs that were being inflicted on those members. A decision was taken to call a special conference to ask your branch officials whether we should use any and all means at our disposal to remedy the wrong. That conference decision was overwhelming in support to act in defence of our members. I was proud that day to see so many officials take to the rostrum and speak out against the injustice. I understood the position of the few delegates who had to honestly admit they doubted that their members would take any action, even over life or death. We, as a Union, have been industrially sedentary for twelve years and the mindset of some of our members is self-protection. I think that is understandable in the historical circumstances but I hope that any member who was reluctant to take any action, or who had decided not to, has seen what collective strength can achieve. It is not a decision we should ever take lightly but, if the need arises, we should not shy away from standing together in defence of our own, and always remember next time it might be in defence of YOU.
The decision that the NEC had to undertake in light of the conference mandate was simply what level or levels of sanctions should be used and when should the sanctions be implemented. The decision in respect of the sanctions to be used, as far as I personally was concerned, was a simple decision. We had to stand together as a Union on an issue, which involved the protection of life, and an all out series of national strikes should be utilised. The NEC were united on that view and the decision as to when to call them was also very carefully planned and strategically considered. This resulted in a comprehensive strategy that, in my opinion, was extremely good.
In the past, the NEC has been accused of not leading from the front and I personally have no reservations in accepting that charge. I think, as a Union at all levels, we have been scared of Section 127 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to the point of paranoia. I can fully and justifiably critique the reasoning behind that fear, and I can also logically follow the Union’s path and the decision making that occurred during the intervening period. The resultant position was one where the Government’s and the employer’s arrogance grew in stature, to a point where they had an honest belief they had the right to do anything they wanted, including acting in a way that directly endangered the lives of our members.
I also believe that the personalised self-destruction that we have been obsessed with during the previous four years increased the employer’s confidence. To see officials of our Union attacking one another with vengeance and vigour, and to see our Annual Conference to be taken over by personal agendas, did nothing but delight our employers. There is evidence to suggest that they did not envisage the Union uniting under one banner, due to the sectional fragmentation that was occurring within the POA. We, as a Union, must not allow personal agendas to ever dominate our agenda again. We must be honest with each other and follow the agenda of the Union together, or face the consequences. Lessons have to be learned from our recent history and I sincerely hope that I will never have to live through the embarrassing events that have occurred during the previous three years. We have to have the right to rectify wrongs that have occurred but the Union cannot be allowed to suffer detriment as a result.
We must also never allow the endangerment of life to occur again, even if it means your Union at national level committing criminal acts. We are the proof, that without effective Union representation anarchy would and has reigned. I believe we, as a Union, have taken a large step forward in achieving a safer working environment for our members and our Union has made a real and significant difference. We must now move the criminal justice system forward so we can once again be the service that really delivers for the public.
There is one issue that I feel I should mention, and that is the NEC decision to send two members of the Executive to hold branch meetings in every establishment, to tell the membership directly what the situation in Northern Ireland was and what would be expected of them. The reason for this, was to negate the possibility of branch officials being isolated and held to account for the action to be taken by the Union nationally. Steve Cox and myself were fortunate enough to be tasked with conducting the NEC branch meetings in the North West and the North East. The reason was purely to further the dispute in Northern Ireland, which it did very successfully, but a resultant outcome of the meetings was to give an overall better awareness of the issues present in both the areas to myself and Steve.
We held twenty-seven meetings in a nine-day period, holding on average three meetings a day. The schedule was arduous and extremely tiring, but the sense of ownership on the two areas was immense. It is an unfortunate reality of the workload that the Executive have, that time does not allow for more branch visits and branch meetings. We all attempt to make as much time as possible to carry out these functions but they are not as frequent as we would like. It is my view that it would be a worthwhile exercise to mirror the strategy the Executive adopted on this matter and conduct a similar road show each year. This, I believe, would give every one of our members the direct access they deserve and it would also give the Executive the views of the entire membership directly. It would also allow the Executive to give a national update to the entire membership, which has never been achieved before. This gives the level of accountability that should exist within our Union and would dispel the arguments of being out of touch. I, in light of those meetings, believe I am not out of touch with the membership, it has made me more convinced that what I have said in my previous article is both true and needed to be said. I also believe that the twenty-seven branches gained from those meetings as much as we did.
It is my intention to discuss the financial implications of the NEC in my next Lifting the Lid. I feel it is important to expound to the membership what the NEC cost, why they cost it, and why it is important that that money is spent. All the membership see of the expenditure of the NEC is a one-page expenditure sheet printed each year in the Gatelodge. I hope I can explain what the NEC do in relation to those costs.
STEVE GOUGH, MA
N E C