Now getting rid of some Code of Practice may not seem a big thing but safety professionals, campaign groups and trade unionists are enraged that, after consulting on whether to withdraw it, the HSE have decided to ignore the views of the large majority of respondents who wanted to keep this ACoP and have instead decided to bin it.

So what is the big deal? Well to some people it is a symptom of all that is wrong with what is happening to health and safety under this Government. The Management Regulations underpin the principle of risk assessment – one of the pillars of our health and safety system. The regulations themselves are short, simple and clear but to help employers implement them there is an ACoP which outlines what they will have to do to meet their legal requirement in more detail. The ACoP has been around almost as long as the regulations themselves and certainly needed updating but it covered a lot of things that are not covered elsewhere (including involving safety reps in risk assessments).

The HSE argue that everything in the ACoP is covered in guidance. That misses the point. An ACoP has different status from guidance and as any safety rep could have told them, employers are far more likely to do something because it is in an ACoP. That is not to say that guidance is not useful. The new HSG65 which is due to be published shortly is a great document but it is not an ACoP. Replacing an ACoP with guidance is simply downgrading it and giving it “nice to have” status. We have also seen other ACoPs be withdrawn and there seems a reluctance to bring in new ones.

I am not sure why the HSE has a problem with ACoPs. Employers organisations have said the like them, the Loftsedt Report seemed to generally support them, and H&S professionals say they find them invaluable. The only people with a problem with them seem to be the HSE.

And there lies the problem. I think people are annoyed at the decision to get rid of the Management Regulations ACoP because they simply can see no logic to the decision. No attempt seems to have been made to update it, and no convincing reason has been given for ditching it. It just seems to be a case of “we have been told to get rid of as much regulation as we can and this is one of the low hanging ones we can pick off easily”.

The professional body for health and safety professionals, IOSH, have started an on-line petition to try to get a parliamentary debate on this matter. I hope that as many of you sign it as possible. It is at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46262

© Copyright Ross, licensed under Creative Commons

Not content using a range of legal tax loopholes to avoid paying corporation tax in the UK, it has been revealed that coffee megachain Starbucks are to cut paid lunch breaks, sick leave and maternity benefits for their 7,000 coffee-shop workers in the UK.

MPs found it hard to believe that over the past 13 years they have paid just £8.6 million on sales of £3.1 billion and in 14 of the 15 years it has operated in the UK, Starbucks has claimed an operating loss.  All this while the company enjoyed a 31% market share by turnover and had briefed shareholders the UK business was making 15% profits. The GMB has been working with UK Uncut to keep this scandal in the public eye.

Now they have sunk to new lows by telling staff that they are no longer to be paid for their half hour break every day, they will no longer receive sick pay for the first day off sick.  

For Starbucks workers, this means a big cut in pay (bearing in mind they are predominantly low paid) and they are far more likely to force themselves to come into work when they are ill, leading to a much greater risk of them spreading infections to both other staff and customers.

However not all benefits are being cut.  The Guardian reports that staff who complete five years of service will continue to receive a pen and the right to take four weeks off (without pay of course).

It should be no surprise that companies that treat their workers like rubbish, try to avoid union recognition and pay low wages are also those that are the worst tax-dodgers.

Unionised companies on the other hand are less likely to get away with slashing pay, they will also be safer and have less grievances and disciplinaries.  So if you do ever find yourself in a Starbucks, please don’t take your frustration about their tax dodging out on the workers, instead take some union application forms with you. In the long run they will do a lot more good.

There is no detail on what these 3,000 regulations are, but it looks like it is simply those that were already identified by the “Red Tape Challenge”. Likewise the announcement on inspections seems no different from the announcement by Chris Grayling in March last year that he was instructing the HSE to do exactly that.

So, if this is just a statement repeating what has already been announced should we be worried?

The simple answer is, ‘Yes’. It is easy to say that this is just “spin”  – and  the fact that BIS are taking a firm hold of the deregulation agenda means that some of the more ridiculous proposals on employment law are likely to be ditched. But it also shows that  the anti-regulation health and safety bashing that has become standard tabloid fodder has gained an echo in government.

The proposal also seems to be going further than the previous proposal to stop the HSE making “pro-active” inspections. This was not legally binding, and did not apply to local authorities, but from April 2013 there will be “binding new rules on both the Health & Safety Executive and on local authorities that will exempt hundreds of thousands of businesses from burdensome, regular health & safety inspections.” The announcement goes on to say “In future, businesses will only face health and safety inspections if they are operating in higher risk areas such as construction, or if they have an incident or a track record of poor performance.”

This shows that the government can completely lost the plot when it comes to regulation, and the effect on workers will be disastrous.

Firstly the idea that offices, shops etc. are low risk is a myth that could be exposed simply looking at the figures. By claiming that these sectors are low risk the government is only looking at injury figures rather than the whole picture. Many of these areas have very high levels of sickness caused by work. For instance postal workers are far more likely to suffer from a back injury because of the loads they have to carry. Supermarkets also have high levels of back pain amongst checkout staff, and injuries from slips. In addition, shop-workers face high levels of violence. Workers in education suffer high levels of stress, as do many other public sector workers including many who work in health and social care.

Secondly, it is not true that inspections are a “burden”. Almost 90% of employers who are visited by the HSE say it is a positive experience.

But most importantly, inspections save lives. TUC research shows that employers are more likely to make changes in the workplace simply because they know that the workplace might be inspected, while an analysis in the current issue of “Hazards Magazine” shows a clear link between inspections and safety levels. As inspections go down, injuries go up. This has also been illustrated by research in the US. Even the HSE’s own research shows that the need to comply with the law is the biggest motivator for employers to change their behaviour.

Unions are not against change. Most of the health and safety regulations that have been repealed in the past 10 years have been got rid of with the support of the unions. After all we don’t want out-of date or complex rules. We want simple clear effective laws that employers and safety representatives can understand. We are also pretty comfortable with the idea that inspections should be targeted at where they can do most good, but often that means warehouses, or schools. However the bottom line is that every employer should know that there is a chance of an inspector walking through the door at any time.

Regulations on health and safety were not made for the protection of employers, they were meant to protect workers, yet the Governments attack on health and safety laws destroying the consensus that has existed around health and safety for the last 40 years.

However what is also important is the message that the government is giving to employers. It is saying that the laws are unnecessary and do not matter. That health and safety is not important and there is no need for rules and regulations, and even where there are no-one is going to check whether you are obeying them. That will mean that more and more workers will be put at risk, made ill and killed or injured at work.

What are the big financial pressures and issues facing the public sector today? Is it the unprecedented programme of public sector cuts being driven through by the coalition government? Is it the hundreds of millions of pounds fuelling shareholder dividends rather than delivering quality public services? Is it perhaps the PFI chickens coming home to roost – with the tax-payer having to foot the bill for facilities they have already paid for many times over? Or maybe its the brewing storm that is likely break as Michael Gove’s charge to Academise and ‘free’ our schools results in more and more cases of corruption and financial abuse?

If you are the ‘Tax-Payer’s Alliance’ (sic)  the answer is ‘none of the above’.

Instead the biggest problem facing Britain’s public services are in fact – you’ve guessed it –  trade unions, and more particularly those pesky union reps who do all those tiresome and unimportant things like ensuring people get fair representation, equality proofing pay systems, making sure workplaces are safe and healthy, and helping their colleagues get access to new skills and qualifications.

If I sound somewhat cynical and world weary about all this….please forgive me, I am.

Today saw the 7^th press release  in 12 months about trade unions from the TPA (who are of course, NOT an alliance of ordinary tax-payers but a opaquely funded right-wing ginger group). And earlier today I also had the pleasure of debating the issue with Matthew Sinclair of the TPA on the ‘Daily Politics’.

Being honest of course, we all know this isn’t really a debate about the legal framework for trade union facility time – its simply a pre-Congress opportunity for the TPA to get in some opportunistic union bashing. For the full facts about facility time, here’s a briefing the TUC produced in January 2012.

Of course its worth noting that  the largest, most representative organisation of tax-payers in the UK is actually the trade union movement – 6 million working people, the overwhelming majority of whom actually do pay their taxes, in full, week after week, month after month. Can the TPA make the same claim about all of  its ‘supporters’?

Rod Liddle: ‘Nonsense’

Just as cuckoos herald the coming of spring, so the ‘silly season’ marks that point in the year when tabloid editors reach for the stories and campaigns marked ‘not to be opened unless truly desperate’. How else to explain the Sun’s new (oxymoronic?) campaign to “Stop the nonsense!”. *

Claiming that public bodies have suffered a “collective loss of common sense”, the campaign was launched with a column by professional controversialist Rod Liddle which made a number of claims, not one of which was about workplace health and safety, and which included a number of stories that had already been thoroughly discredited.

These include a story that ‘health and safety’ meant that the police were stopped from rescuing a man in Gosport who subsequently drowned (The Daily Mail, who ran the story actually withdrew it shortly after), and that Wimbledon tennis club had stopped spectators using Murray Mound for safety reasons.

Now there is no doubt that some organisations do stupid things, and sometimes ‘health and safety’ is used as an excuse by organisations who either do not want to do something or are worried about insurance claims.

Perhaps these are sometimes fair game for the tabloids, given that they are really about entertainment rather than news, but is there really a problem out there? From the evidence it would seem not. Rather than public bodies and employers routinely trying to wrap us all up in cotton wool, most school trips, village fairs and street parties seem to manage to go ahead despite what the Prime Minister has called the health and safety culture that is “strangling” our economy.

But it is in the workplace that the effects are most felt. By focusing on a few harmless incidents (none of which are anything to do with the workplace) and ignoring the huge problem of people ignoring health and safety requirements the “brand” of health and safety gets diminished. People see “health and safety” as stupid rules and barriers, rather than as a framework for protecting those most vulnerable in society.

When employers do stick their head above the parapet and try to improve the safety position of their workers, as the European hairdressers did earlier this year, they face being criticised by politicians and the media. Employers get the message that health and safety is about doing the minimum required by the law, not about trying to follow good practice. The HSE has even set up a panel that anyone can complain to if they think someone is using health and safety has been used as an excuse. And they are guaranteed a reply in a few days. It would nice to get the same service when there are complaints that people’s safety is at risk.

Anyone who has had an injury or an occupational illness will know only too well that there is not an “overzealous” interpretation of health and safety in the workplace. Quite the opposite. Occupational Cancers still kill between 10 and 20,000 people every year and around 2 million people suffer from ill-health at work. All these are preventable. We need to ensure that health risks are identified and dealt with so that workers and the public are protected.

The Sun could really help us do that by exposing some of the examples that trade unions see every day. Cases of people crushed by reversing lorries because the employer did not bother to provide a Banksman. Hairdressers whose hands are covered in dermatitis because they have never been issued with gloves. Teachers and social workers forced out of the profession because the employer has no policy in place for preventing stress. That is what health and safety is really about. It would just be nice to read about some of that occasionally.

*(I reluctantly read this stuff so you don’t have to)

Despite significant and ongoing job losses in the public sector, union action on pensions – coupled  with a generally raised profile as unions have shown a lead against the government’s damaging austerity programme – has meant that membership appears to be holding steady and in some cases growing. But this is just one one small silver lining in what looks like an increasingly gloomy outlook for our members and their families. Union membership is not just an end in itself. Workers don’t organise for the sake of holding a union card: they organise to help protect their jobs; to ensure they get paid decently; to have access to pensions; to work somewhere that’s safe and healthy; to get a voice on the job; and to develop new skills and build their careers. There’s no doubt that delivering on all these points and more has got harder and harder. Even successful, highly profitable employers appear to be using the current economic crisis as cover cutting back on jobs, pay and pensions (see here and here for current and obvious examples).

It would be easy in this climate to seek solace in counsels of despair. But that’s not my style, and my guess is that if you are reading this blog, it’s not yours either. So I thought it was right to point out that despite all the difficulties, there is plenty of evidence that unions are still in there fighting, and most importantly winning for members. Here’s two very different private sector examples of what I mean.

Most of us grew up with Woolworths. Its record department and pick ‘n’ mix were the stuff of childhood legend, which is why so  many of us were shocked when over 800 Woolworth shops and outlets shut their doors at the end of 2008. But it wasn’t just memories that were lost when Woolies closed down – nearly 30,000 people lost their jobs when the company’s administrator pulled the plug. Since then USDAW has been trying to secure at least some justice for those thrown out of work – a long and protracted battle which finally resulted in this week’s news that 24,000 former Woolworth’s staff will share some £68m in compensation, awarded by a Tribunal who ruled that the administrator should have properly consulted USDAW before making redundancies. That’s £68million pound going back into the pockets of thousands of former Woolies staff – and just as importantly, a very clear message sent out to employers and administrators that unions won’t stand by and watch members get diddled out of what little legal protection they have. Without USDAW I think you can safely assume the likelihood of those staff receiving a single penny in compensation would have been close to zero.

The other case I thought I’d highlight shows that unions are not just about helping members when things go wrong, or reacting to closures and redundancies. They can also be on the front foot. RMT have notched up a number of notable victories over the last few months (and as a regular user of Virgin Trains I was particularly pleased with this pay award for contract cleaners on Branson’s West Coast Mainline routes), but the thing that really caught my eye was the news that the union had managed to secure a Olympics paydeal worth some £2,500 for staff on the Docklands Light Railway. A one-off deal for a one-off event? Hard to replicate elsewhere? Maybe… but it’s a win that owes a lot to strong union organisation, and shows what unions can do to buck the prevailing pay trend.   With average wage settlements bumping along at around 2%, and unions looking for ways to reverse the three decade long assault on pay, its a good reminder that below inflation pay-rises are neither pre-ordained or inevitable.

At a time when tens of thousands of union members face the prospect of losing their jobs, and are struggling to make ends meet, I’m reluctant to reach for pat assurances that all is well. Of course, all is not well. 2011 was a tough year for unions and their members. 2012 looks like being tougher still. But that makes it even more important that we take heart from – and celebrate – each and every success we have.

The two examples I’ve highlighted above show two very different unions in very different circumstances, who despite all the challenges have managed to tip the balance back a little bit towards their members. These aren’t one-offs. The same is happening in workplaces, both public and private, up and down the country. David is winning more often than we sometimes think. I reckon that something that’s got to be worth shouting about – and if you do too, tell us about your wins at @strongerunions

Earlier today Ken Zinn, the NNU’s director of strategic campiagns, emailed me to ask what songs and chants people will be using on picket lines across the UK on November 30, and I have to admit I drew a bit of a blank. 

I’ll guess there will be a fair few‘No if’s, no but’s etc etc’ and one or two renditions of ‘David Cameron, hear us shout…’ , but have any Stronger Unions readers got any better ideas? What are you planning to do to raise spirits and a few laughs on your picket line, march or rally this Wednesday?

Suggestions in the comments box or via Twitter please…oh, and try to remember this is a ‘family friendly’ blog so please reflect that in your suggestions!

Their latest opus sets out what it calls a ‘scandalous subsidy for unions’ conflating facilities and facility time for union reps in the public sector, with other types of support such as that provided through the Union Learning Fund – an initiative that has won widespread support from employers and Ministers alike.

Leaving aside the usual mistakes and/or deliberate omissions (the NFU is a ‘union’ apparently though I can confirm they have not indicated their official support for the TUC’s Day of action on November 30,  and there is no mention of the fact that in some cases unions make payments toward the costs of facilities and time-off arrangements) the report’s major flaw is that it purports to highlight the COSTS (allegedly £113m) of such support, but studiously avoids any mention of any BENEFITS that may accrue from such support.

Thus the traditional cost/benefit analysis’ that most organisations or individuals would use to assess whether or not something represented value for money, is replaced in the world of the TPA by a slightly more simplistic ‘cost – and only cost -analysis’.

But fear not. A rigorous cost/benefit analysis of public support for union facilities and facility time was undertaken by the Department for Business in 2007. This found that the benefits of union representation far outweighed the costs to the tax-payer (we’ve summarised this in the past).

In fact it showed that reps across the public and private sector give their employers and fellow employees about £115m of their own time every year (at 2007 prices) – which by neat coincidence slightly exceeds the £113m that the TPA claims unions receive in public support. But the benefits of union representation go way beyond the time that union reps put in of their own accord.

Across the public and private sector the analysis concluded that union reps accounted for:

• Savings to employers and the exchequer of between £22m – £43m as a result of reducing the number of Employment Tribunal cases;
• Benefits to society worth between £136m – £371m as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and;
• Benefits to society worth between £45m – £207m as a result of reducing work related illness.

In addition, using the same formulae used in the BERR report but with updated figures, it can reasonably be estimated that the work of union reps also results in;

• Overall productivity gains worth between £4bn to 12bn to the UK economy;
• Savings of at least £19 million as a result of reducing dismissals;
• Savings to employers of between £82m – £143m in recruitment costs as a result of reducing early exits.

One would have thought that an organisation that claims to want to SAVE the tax-payer money would therefore be rather in favour of unions. But instead Britain’s ‘independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes’ (no sniggering at the back) seems, as a point of principle, to object to government spending ANY money that may support trade union reps carrying out their duties, even if that money generates higher, real and measurable benefits for employers, the tax-payer and UK PLC as a whole. Hmmm.

This doesn’t really seem to make any sense at all. But then little about the TPA makes sense. One would have thought a significant grass-roots organisation could have mustered more than a few hundred people for its ‘Rally against the Debt’ just weeks after the TUC mobilised half a million to ‘March for the Alternative’. And for an organisation that talks a lot about the need for financial transparency, its own ‘Annual Review’ is somewhat opaque on its major sources of funding (recently raised here as well).

Of course the largest, most democratic organisations made up of grass-roots ‘tax-payers’ in the UK are actually trade unions – whose six million members in the public and private sector do pay tax, do use and value public services, and who are actively supporting union campaigns to make taxes fair. If that sounds like you, don’t despair – there is a Tax Payers Alliance for you as well!

Over the next few days unions including UNITE, the GMB and a host of others will be announcing the results of their industrial action ballots over pensions.

As sure as night follows day– and as we saw after the UNISON ballot result  last week –right wing commentators and politicians will be out in force bleating loudly about ‘low turn-outs’ and ‘weak mandates’.

Here are five reasons why moans about turnouts and mandates are disingenuous:

1)    People in glasshouses…

Talk of mandates is a bit rich coming from a coalition government that failed to win a clear majority at the last election. Only 23.5% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives in May 2010. Only 1 in 7 voters cast a vote for the Liberal Democrats. Together both parties failed to secure a majority of those eligible to vote. And yet, despite this lack of a mandate, they are pushing through reforms that they either couldn’t even be bothered to put in their manifesto (‘no top down reform of the NHS’ anyone) or that directly contradict those that they did (tripling tuition fees).

2)    If governments really want to improve turnouts they should make it easier for people to vote

Insisting on people taking part in a home postal ballot is clunky and destroys any link between the issue at hand and the act of voting. When I vote for anything I like to be informed. I like to know what the issues are; what other people are saying about them; what the arguments for and against might be.

It would make sense if having had that discussion with my colleagues I could then cast my vote in the workplace, or maybe even on-line during my lunch-break  or at the end of my shift. But the legislation doesn’t allow you to do that. Instead you have to go home, wait for your ballot to arrive, and then make a trip to the Post Box.

Is it not a bit bizarre that in the 21^st century I can vote for my worst/favourite candidate on a reality TV show by phone, on-line or by text but that if I want to cast a vote in an industrial action ballot I have to do so by such a prescriptive, and for many people unintuitive, route.

If the government was serious about improving turnouts in industrial action ballots – rather than scoring political points – it would get rid of balloting ‘red-tape’ and allow people  to vote in a way that suits them and would also maximise turnout. One for the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ maybe? Don’t hold your breath.

3)    Not voting is not the same as voting no

The lazy and politically motivated assumption amongst many politicians and  media commentators is that if people don’t vote for industrial action, they are in effect voting against industrial action. Is that really the case? Is this the way we assess voting patterns more broadly? As I’ll set out later there are lots of reasons why people don’t vote – but the fact that they don’t vote, doesn’t mean that if they had they would have voted against taking industrial action.

Just for once I’d love to see a newspaper headline which said (using UNISON’s figures) ‘6.4% of union members vote NOT to take industrial action’. Again, don’t hold your breath.

4)    The ballots in the run up to November 30 are a huge exercise in democracy

We love democracy in this country. We especially love it when it takes place in other countries. Even the most right-wing newspapers go weak at the knees at the sight of people going to the polls for the first time in countries emerging from despotic regimes, and rightly so.

The exception to this enthusiasm for democracy appears to be industrial action ballots. But isn’t taking part in a collective act of democracy a good thing?

We should value the fact that – taking the Unison ballot result – over 300,000 people took part in a significant democratic event that for once had nothing to do with a TV show.  And even more so in an era where we are constantly told that people are disillusioned with politics and the democratic process in general.

Such participation runs totally at odds with the government’s narrative that society is broken and civic engagement is in decline.  And what a breath of fresh air the decision making processes of unions are – based on the will of hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions, of ‘ordinary’ men and women – and not the whims of a cabinet-sized group of multi millionaires.

You know what I’m going to say next. Isn’t this just about the best example you can find of the ‘Big Society’ in action?!

5)    There are lots of reasons people don’t vote

In the UK we work on the basis that as well as having a right TO vote, people have a right NOT to vote.  This is underpinned by the belief that no inference should be taken from a decision not to vote.  These principles apply as equally to industrial action ballots as to those  processes by which we elect councillors and MPs.

The reasons why people don’t vote are many and complex. Sometimes they don’t think the issue is important enough to them. Sometimes they genuinely can’t make up their minds and decide to sit the vote out and see what others think.  And yes, sometimes people are just too damn lazy.

I’d add a couple of other reasons that I think are relevant to the current round of ballots.

In the last few months we’ve lost over 100,000 public sector jobs. Public sector workers are trying their best to cope with arbitrary pay freezes at a time when inflation is running at over 5% and the real costs of living for families – the petrol you put in your car, the food you buy in the supermarket, the clothes you buy your kids – are rising even faster than that.

If you work on the assumption – and I do – that a vote for industrial action is a big deal for our members even at the best of times (its a vote which costs you money), its perhaps not surprising that some people have hung back and decided not to vote.

Secondly, the stark reality is that many of our members are loath to do anything that means they can’t do their jobs – they care about their patients, their pupils, the members of the public who rely upon them. They take pride in the work and the services they deliver.

But they are having to balance that commitment and that loyalty, with the realisation that the government’s proposals on pensions will mean paying more, working longer and getting less. Its a tough call – and in the face of that call, I guess some people have effectively decided to defer their decision in the hope an agreed settlement can be reached.

In that they are not alone.

Unions have made clear all along that they are prepared to negotiate a fair pensions settlement. But what we can’t accept is imposed changes that will leave millions of public servant workers out of pocket, and will render pensions promises made over a lifetime of service meaningless.

I’m proud to be active in, and work for, a democratic movement. I’m glad that at the end of the day decisions about how what unions do, and how they are run, rest with the members.  And, I’m not too keen on taking lessons in democracy from those who when they are looking for votes promise one thing, and when elected deliver another.

There is a common perception in the UK (and indeed across much of the industrialised world) that people are becoming less and less likely to engage in community and voluntary activity. In the UK – as Becky has vlogged – membership of both political parties and trade unions has fallen markedly in the last 3 decades. In the US, the phrase ‘bowling alone’ taken from Robert Putnam’s book of the same title has come to express the sense that society is becoming more and more fragmented; that the traditional informal and formal groupings that bind us together have become weaker and less prevalent; that our social ‘networks’ are increasingly based in the virtual world rather than the real one.

Politicians have seized upon this narrative. David Cameron has prescribed the Big society as the cure for ‘Broken Britain’ (stop sniggering at the back); the mainstream left have countered with the ‘Good Society’ and a clear strand of the Blue Labour project is to (re)create the ‘organizing structures and practices’ which can help people come together around local campaigns and shared political aspirations.

It’s this traditional narrative of ‘Broken Britain’, the sense that our social realm was in decline that Henry Hemming set out to write about. What he actually ended up writing was very different. Rather than charting the death of associational activity, ‘Together’ highlights what Hemming describes as ‘a nationwide surge of associational activity in Britain’.

Acknowledging that many of the larger traditional ‘associations – the WI, Rotary clubs, Working Men’s Clubs and, yes in many cases, unions – have experienced decline, Hemming charts an explosion in the number of clubs, associations,
community organisations and voluntary groups active across the UK.

But as well as charting the unheralded growth of associational behaviour in the UK, and the positive impact that has for individuals and society more broadly, ‘Together’ also offers practical insights for unions and others  as to what helps groups form, sustain themselves and be effective.

Those that Hemming identifies as ‘Machers’: people who ‘articulate what an association could be’; who co-ordinate their group and remind people of their responsibilities; who step back and give others the space to develop and shine; and who have a thick enough skin to take the flak when things go wrong, unions will readily identify as activists and potential reps. How we identify union ‘machers’ and ‘maintainers’ – those who help to sustain local organisations –  how  we support and develop them, are key questions for unions at a time when our rep base is declining and aging.

‘Together’ also helps highlight the important role that the internet can play in helping ‘real-life’ groups can coalesce and sustain themselves. On-line activity is not a substitute for meeting face to face, and basic human interaction but it can help groups keep in touch, to sustain their conversations between formal meetings and enrich the quality of those conversations and activity.

We have such a strong starting point – over  6 million members; 200,000 workplace reps; the ability to organise and mobilise when we really put our minds to it and work together (March 26, or the 35,000 we turned out at Conservative Party conference just 3 weekends ago).

Our organisational DNA is infused with the practical experience that by coming together, we are so much more than the sum of our parts.  ‘Together’ is a useful reminder that solidarity lives and breathes in many different ways, and in many different places. For every national demo, there are dozens, if not hundreds of small anti-cuts groups meeting in church halls, community centres and front-rooms (the False Economy web-site lists over 200 such anti-cuts groups). Knitting together these disparate but essential strands of our movement, is a an essential part of our wider campaign to stop this government’s programme of cuts and reforms in its track, and our longer term objective to build stronger, more effective unions.