The Merger – Election of Officers
submitted by John Boardeman

We are currently approaching decision time on the proposed merger with the T&G and GMB. One of the great debates that will beset the Rules Commission of the proposed new union will be the accountability of the officers of the new union. The issue needs careful consideration and should not be dealt with lightly as it will probably be a make or break factor in securing popular support throughout the constituent unions for the merger to take place.

One thing we probably all recognise is that doubling the size of the union will create the potential for the leadership to become increasingly remote from the activists and members, therefore it is common sense to seek to increase the accountability of not just the Full Time Officials to the members, but also of the National Officer Leadership Team to the NEC and the NEC to the members within the new union.

The Gazette has a united and defined position in relation to maintaining the election of Full Time Officials and it is expected that the Amicus NEC will carry this position forward into the Rules Commission because it is the position adopted by the 2005 Rules Conference.

The T & G currently appoint Full Time Officials through an elected Rank and File body and will probably and understandably argue for the retention of their position. Therefore we are heading for a situation where either one union is going to have to give way and face dissent from within its own ranks or the Rules Commission are going to have to find ways of synchronising the accountability requirements of each union if we are to achieve the significant leap necessary to strengthen the power of the Trade Union Movement both nationally and internationally.

If all else fails perhaps the membership of the new union should have the opportunity to decide the final outcome on this key issue!

The FTO structure of any union is sometimes referred to benignly as the “Civil Service” of the union. The theory being that this Civil Service then carries out the policy of the union determined by the elected lay members of the Policy Conference, in line with the defined rules of the union decided by the elected lay members of the Rules Conference. The assumption we are left to make is that the Full Time Officials are an apolitical group of individuals beavering away for the good of the members with no thought of self promotion. This may well be true for some of them. However, within both MSF and the AEEU Officers were appointed on the ancient principle of fealty.

We have seen members held in contempt and devalued by some FTO’s, because the FTO’s have not had to maintain the respect of the members and have been driven entirely by their own self interest or the interests of their superiors.

Equally we have had the bitter experience of seeing the inward collapse of democracy at the hands of a politically accommodating leadership who ruthlessly controlled their FTO ranks and through them were able to control who the policy and rule makers were that attended the conferences and as a consequence the policies and rules that were adopted.

Consequently the General Secretary becomes the key player (as Hughie Scanlon put it: “when father turns, we all turn”). Notwithstanding the current legal requirement, it is absolutely essential that the leadership of the union is subject (by the process of election) to change by the membership, should the need arise. Because the leadership of the union usually rises through the ranks, it is equally important that all FTOs are subject to the continuous scrutiny of the members, not simply because they may one day hold the highest office, but also to ensure their ongoing capability and performance is kept up to scratch.

We do not support the position of a rank and file body appointing Officials because that is also open to accusations of corruption and any such appointment is not redeemable at some future date in time by the members. It is far better to have the transparency of an election by the members that engenders a two-way loyalty between members, activists and Full Time Officers, that is sadly lacking in any union that does not elect its officials.

We understand that there are cost issues that relate to holding elections and accommodations can be made to minimise this. We also are aware that from time to time it will be necessary to reassign duties on a temporary basis to cover for colleagues on leave of absence or to fill a vacated position until an election takes place.
We of course recognise that the day to day management of the officers must remain with the leadership, but the final accountability should be with the members through the process of election.

It is worth noting that up until the Jordan/Laird era of the AEU (a union in which all FTOs were elected) all officials of the union were paid an identical salary irrespective of their position; not only did this assist in the maintenance of relationships (respect instead of envy) between officials at al levels, but we never had any shortage of volunteers who wanted to stand in an election to become an Official or progress through the ranks to hold higher office.

Irrespective of whether their politics were right, left or centre, they invariably wanted to hold office for good reasons. Having to face periodic election kept their feet planted firmly on the ground and their energies directed to serving the members.