Tim Price
When I was asked if I would
deliver an input on the union perspective at the June 07 Critically
Chatting gig I kinda missed the point. There was to be a meeting
of UNISON’s National Committee for Youth and Community Workers,of
which I am a member, on the Wednesday before. My mind focussed on this
and I assumed that some sort of update was required.
Had I twigged that the issue
of managerial/worker relations and the part played by unions in this
was what was wanted, I doubt that I could have fleshed out my position
in any greater detail than the following statement:
On balance trade unions oil
the managerial process.
Who for example offers a handkerchief
to the employee who has just been told that they are redundant? Or who
says that this year’s below inflation pay settlement is the best that
could be negotiated?
Any road, in the event I delivered
an update on the world of youth work and the main unions relation to
what is happening. I outlined my thinking with a lovely set of arrows
and then I carefully marinaded this initial thinking in honey raki so
that I had a clear set of notes for my input on the day. Unfortunately
I only have my original arrows left and the notes have somehow slipped
away, like the raki. This piece hopefully, is even more coherent than
my input on the day. Enjoy.
As precious as youth work is
to its multifarious practitioners, it does not sit in the centre of
or isolation from the rest of the world.
Since the mid 1970’s two
key elements have been shaping the Britain: The first is the effort
of the ruling capitalist class as a whole to restore profitability.
The second is the battle for the greater share of this profit between
manufacturing and finance capital.
The attempts by national capital
to deal with their own internal contradictions in the first half of
the nineteenth century led to world wars against a backcloth of the
working class struggling with them. Capitalism has always had to deal
with the opposition that arises from its search for profit. This has
been pursued through a variety of measures that aim to smash, subvert
or incorporate this opposition. The British post war settlement was
an outcome of the pressure of working class social force: faced with
massive opposition capitalism sought to incorporate and subvert a force
that it could not smash at this time. By the 1970s an active working
class tposed a serious threat to profitability if not the capitalist
class as a whole. The Callaghan Government in trying to manage this
sided with Finance capital and their disciplines to try to resolve the
situation. Thatcher took this further and the collapse of manufacturing
industry in Britain ensued and further attacks on the trade union movement.
The Blair Government under the economic oversight of clever Gordon Brown
have taken this even further, introducing measures that would have seemed
as unbelievable to workers in the 1970s as egalitarian revolution seems
unbelievable to the British working class today. Blair may be gone but
Brown promises more of the same.
Through all of this youth continues
to be seen as both a problem and a danger, notwithstanding the occasional
Government rhetoric that the majority of them are compliant and meet
the required targets. Most of the ‘troublesome youth’ come from
a segment of the working class that has been resistant to exploitation
as wage slaves or have been damaged by their relationship with wage
slavery. Although at times it has been expedient to allow them to be
idle, in the longer run they need to be productive in order for profits
to continue to grow. They can be a nuisance to people leaving the opera
house.
A combination of under-funding
and a lack of coherence about what youth work is has made it hard for
successive governments to use youth work as a strategic tool. As such
it has been the target of local authority cuts, further undermining
any potential it might have. And yet it has been difficult to get rid
of.
The size of the state sponsored
youth service workforce is actually quite small: around 4,000 ‘professional’
and 10,000 support workers, (most of whom are part time, so the total
number is around 4,000 full time equivalents.) Their pay and conditions
are governed by the Report of the Joint Negotiating Community for Youth
and Community Workers, (known as the Pink Book or JNC for short.) Although
a few are under the Green Book or Report of the National Joint Committee
for Local Government Workers or NJC as it called. The Voluntary
and Community Sector does what it wants with its Youth and Community
Workers, and by all accounts there are a lot more of them than state
sponsored JNC workers.
Four unions represent their
members on the JNC: what was CYWU ( now UNITE/T&G/CYWU) which has
8 seats on the staff side not to mention the chair and secretariat,
UNISON, which has 4 seats, the NUT, 2 seats and what was NATFHE also
has 2 seats. The presence of the last 2 is mainly historical and they
will openly confess to having few youth and community work members.
UNISON on the other hand claims to have at least as many as CYWU but
because of its membership records system has not been able to prove
it. . So there has been non-stop tension between CYWU and UNISON,(and
its predecessor NALGO) for a good 20 years.
UNISON’s current policy is
to continue to support the JNC if it is allowed equal representation
with UNITE,(CYWU). The policy also sets a date of September 2007 for
the achievement of this, Failure to achieve this end will trigger reconsideration
of the position. This ongoing resolution of the issue may finally arrive.
It reflects a discussion that has been going on within UNISON for many
years about whether the JNC should be dissolved and workers moved on
to the NJC terms and conditions. This would allow all jobs to undergo
Job Evaluation and end the possibility of equal pay claims that are
clearly so possible with the current JNC Agreement. The current JNC
Agreement was not supported by UNISON. The bottom line for this opposition
is that the JNC does not have an analytical grading system, something
that has been legally established as a requirement for proving a system
that has equal pay. Job Evaluation is such an analytical system. It
would also truly place our interests alongside of the clerical, admin
and cleaning staff with whom we work. This position was at the centre
of the exodus of CYWU members to NALGO in the late 1980’s and has
been the political bedrock of NALGO/UNISON’s identity; Except that
a large section of members are unwilling to sacrifice their additional
2 weeks’ leave for the principal. This view has been expressed at
national Seminars, in various consultations and through representatives
on the National Committee.
CYWU emerged from late 80’s
as an essentially independent union narrowly focussed on youth work.
This continues to be the case in spite of its continuing efforts to
recruit playworkers, community workers and Connexions workers. It would
like to see these groups brought within the JNC. Unfortunately for them
the JNC continually refers to youth and community workers and the National
Occupational Standards for Youth Work, meaning that incorporation would
mean wholesale re-writing of the Report. No doubt there was a whole
shopping basket full of reasons for CYWU’s recent reconsideration
of their position. the union into recognition that they needed to stand
alongside other workers in a bigger union. They finally arrived at the
position that they needed to be part of a bigger union. Unfortunately,
not one that has seats on the main negotiating committee for the Local
Government, the NJC. And who am I to suggest it was the one with CYWU’s
general Secretary’s Maoist mates that was chosen rather than one of
the more obvious ones. Puzzling? (The Communist Party of Great Britain(Marxist
Leninist) and supporters of Mao rather than the Soviet Union have long
sought key positions in the trade unions as a means of achieving their
goals.)
The Employers blow hot and
cold about the JNC. A few years back they were talking of disbanding
it, then they decided that they were committed to it forever. Now, in
the face of wider policies, they are on the brink of disbanding it again,
(and all the other smaller negotiating bodies.) Well, they are discussing
it amongst themselves. But they told us just so we knew what was happening.
So why this change?
There have been a number of
elements and stages in the quest for restored and increasing profitability.
The means for the second phase, essentially after the unions had been
smashed was new managerialism, which has served finance capital well.
Change is good. Constant improvement (whatever you do will never be
good enough!) Atomising the workforce, making the pursuit of one’s
own career the fundamental motivation. Tendering and outsourcing. Joint
working. Reworking the managerial process and applying new language
to mask what it is doing so we have seen the transition from Personnel
to Human Resources, for example, with the implication that the workforce
is being valued even as it is being kicked about and having its pay
cut. (Any good references – books websites for more detail on this…
worried that it could become a book!)
Every Child Matters and Youth
Matters have shaken the foundations of the secure world of youth work.
The move to Childrens and Young People’s Services has brought with
it the imperative of targeted work and joint agency working, (generic
youth support work has clearly been recognised as a pig in a poke and
dropped.) In the discussion document mentioned above the future is staked
out: A couple of steps down the road there will be one national framework
agreement for Local Government Workers which will encompass ‘the total
Reward package’. At a local level there will be families of workers,
e.g those working with children and young people. From the framework
local variations will be offered so that each individual worker can
have reward package that suits him/her chosen from the reward menu,
presumably things like lower pay for more leave or a bigger pension
stake.
The family of workers will
make it easier to migrate from profession to another. Constant professional
Development is the means for a worker to achieve this. Individual professions
will be maintained by statute and/or through recognised training programmes
based on National Occupational Standards backed up by a registration
of licensing body that will, to some extent regulate the ‘trade’.
Mind you, how all this relates
to ‘outsourcing’ (bearing in mind that a recent JNC Survey failed
to elicit even one response from the Voluntary Sector) waits to be seen.
The Tory Government found that
defining youth work was clearly a problem at the first Ministerial Conference.
Different groups even had age ranges that were mutually exclusive from
each other. On this issue 8 – 25 was happened on as an inclusive solution.
And this was the way for of it- wide, flexible and useless definitions.
By the time New Labour came
to power there were expectations that it was all going to be good –
expansion of provision, more workers, more management, in fact a nice
drink for everyone.
So what was the first youth
policy announced at a conference called by the NYA soon after the election?
– New Deal, get the idle young gits working. No drink for the lads
and lasses.
It was the best part of 5 years
before the next major Youth Policy. This was Connexions. Originally
trailed as a generic service for all young people. But between resistance
to the idea of generic workers and the Country’s coffers the ides
was slowly morphed into a more supportive careers service with funkier
workers.
The idea of generic work has
been replaced by the idea of collaborative working and easy movement
between professions under one management structure. New Managerialism
has hit youth work full in the face. A careful road has been mapped
making the dual carriageway of individual work preferable to the rambling
road of group work. The expansion of accredited and recorded work, based
on individuals as outlined in the REYS (Resourcing Excellent Youth Services)
targets is setting the scene for targeted work, (albeit largely in a
generic setting.) Attempts to redefine Youth Work have met with partial
success. Resistance has come from workers and young people. In some
ways generic work has had to be rehabilitated. At last a means has been
found to make youth workers part of a strategic approach to the problem
of youth. It can only be downhill from here.
Oh fuck! (That was it in
version 1)
(version 2)
I don’t know why I still
find it difficult to believe that a Labour Government is imposing one
of the most blatant pay cuts of state workers in living memory. It seems
to betray a confidence and arrogance that Finance Capital currently
has. There is no shame: individuals in the city take home Christmas
bonuses that could keep Devon’s current youth service going for 5
years on the back Government Pay Restraint, spuriously based on inflation
targets.
But the postal workers have
already begun their strike campaign. Local Government workers’ unions
are considering their options. The Labour Government is trying to maintain
a 2% pay rise limit. Given inflation is at least 3.7% this is a significant
cut. There could well be an upsurge in industrial action and the British
Working Class may exert some of their social force. Is the arrogance
of the ruling class going to prove a great misjudgement? If so the logic
of youth workers being in a large union comes to the fore. The reality
is that inter union cooperation is the most promising line. If the Employers
continue on the planned trajectory the JNC will disappear and pay and
conditions will be determined within the NJC. The historical animosity
will make it hard for CYWU members to leave UNITE and join UNISON,.
However the logic of being inside the negotiating machinery may cause
a steady drip of allegiance switches. No doubt UNISON will bring its
recruitment machinery into full swing to facilitate this if the JNC
goes tits up. In the mean time youth workers are preparing for action
alongside other government workers.Youth workers can be part of the
social force that is needed to resist further attacks, and hey, maybe
in the longer run rebalance it in our favour.
We shall see, we shall see.