From: P&B Union <pnbunion@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Subject: Thanks for Your Support and Lobby Appeal Hearing Tues 15 July
Brothers and Sisters
My heartfelt thanks on behalf of myself and the CWU Pell and Bales Section to all of you that have protested against my victimisation. Our well-attended monthly meeting last week unanimously agreed to continue the campaign to reverse management's decision to sack me, a decision clearly motivated by their desire to halt our successful union drive.
The letters of protest have been fantastic. It means that Pell and Bales management know that their attacks on our union are not going unnoticed and it also shows workers in the call centre that there are serious forces outside of us involved in this fight and this does raise their confidence. But we could do with more, so please encourage fellow workers andfriends to send them:
Please send a message of protest to Pell & Bales CEO Karl Holweger!
Write to kholweger@pellandbales.co.uk Please cc:pnbunion@googlemail.com
Send messages of solidarity to Pat - patrickcarmody@hotmail.com
I would ask at this stage that you hold off on contacting the charities directly as yet. We will advise you as to when we would like to you flood the likes of Cancer Research, Oxfam, etc with letters.If you have done so already, not to worry.
My appeal hearing is on Tuesday 15th July.We will be holding a lobby outside Pell and Bales offices on this day:please bring union banners and delegations if you can: details are:
DEFEND PAT CARMODY - DEFEND THE UNION
LOBBY PAT'S APPEAL HEARING
TUESDAY 15th JULY FROM 10.30am211 Old Street EC1V 9NR
exit 7 - Old St tube
Hope to see you there.If you need leaflets, etc, please contact Tom or Michelle belo
Thanks again and see you soon
Pat Carmody CWU Capital Branch Pell and Bales Section Secretary
If you can support the campaign by receiving news, petitioning, doing a collection, or anything else, please email pnbunion@googlemail.comor call Communication Worker Union organisers Tom on 07894 461713 orMichelle on 07872 816747
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Friday, 4 July 2008
Farewell to a free NHS by Allyson Pollock
July 2, 2008 by solidaritymagazine
Read the small print: Lord Darzi’s report pave the way for Labour to charge for NHS care.
Lord Darzi, the unelected health minister, has signalled that Labour will continue to dismantle and privatise the NHS delivery system, its staff and services – handing taxpayers’ funds to multinational companies, and remodelling the service along the lines of US healthcare.
It is all a far cry from their 1997 manifesto pledge: “Our fundamental purpose is simple but hugely important: to restore the NHS as a public service working cooperatively for patients not a commercial business driven by competition.”
Markets introduce new costs that do not occur in integrated public services: billing, invoicing, marketing and profits. All these divert resources and funds away from the service, creating enormous inefficiency. So what is the government up to?
Darzi provides the clearest sign yet that Labour is planning to introduce charges for healthcare, crossing the final rubicon of NHS privatisation - its funding base.
The commercial sector, unlike NHS public services, has market freedoms that the public sector does not - the freedom to levy charges and restrict care, and to downgrade or deregulate staff terms and conditions. The commercial sector’s first duty is to shareholders and risks must be managed either by reducing staff wages and terms, cherrypicking profitable patients and treatments, or by ensuring that it is not faced with the enormous costs of unpredictable care.
Co-payments and top-up insurance were alien terms a decade ago: they are direct imports from the US healthcare industry. Today they trip off ministers’ tongues. Contrast this with the NHS Plan 2000, which stated that “user charges are unfair and inequitable in they increase the proportion of funding from the unhealthy, old and poor compared with the healthy, young and wealthy.”
In theory, government cannot prevent the private sector from selling health insurance and top up services. In practice, the new providers of healthcare have seen the political unacceptability of introducing charges too early, although the boundaries between what is public and what is private are blurred.
So the Darzi report, instead of renouncing charges, paves the way for them. First, it trails the idea of a NHS constitution which will set out rights for care. In doing so it introduces the notion that there will no longer be NHS open-ended care according to need, following in the footsteps of NHS dentistry and long term care. The constitution reflects the current attempt to redefine NHS care into a basic minimum package. For example, in the newly privatised general practice agreements, the government has fragmented previously integrated services into core, additional and enhanced services. It has ended the open ended duty of care, and introduced the notion of time limits and defined entitlement. How long before the government allows the commercial sector to define a basic package of NHS care, beyond which everything else is paid for and charged for through top ups and co-payments? That, after all, is the American way.
The report also proposes introducing personal budgets. There is no logic to these because individual budgets pass risk down to the patient. But the idea, of a sort of portable voucher system, is a Republican one: patients can get so much care and top up and carry the risks.
Darzi does not renounce charges: “We will ensure that the programme fully supports the principles of the NHS as a comprehensive service, free at the point of use,” he says. But this contrasts with the 1977 NHS Act, which says “services so provided shall be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.”
Labour has crossed its final Rubicon. The NHS Plan 2000 allowed the break-up and commercialisation of NHS services because the government claimed it didn’t matter how services were delivered so long as they were publicly funded. Now tax-based funding is to be undermined, and that means an end to universal coverage.
Universal coverage is not discussed by Darzi, and nor is equitable redistribution on the basis of need. Instead most of his report is dedicated to quality. This is the American way. The US jusitifies the denial of care to 50 million of its people by focusing attention on quality of providers, not access or response to need.
The problem for the government is that no country has a for-profit sector delivering universal healthcare, and it has no evidence to support the policy of a market in healthcare. The Darzi report is simply a glib advertising campaign on behalf of the healthcare industry and a new generation of greedy healthcare entrepreneurs. What of the losers? The hidden hand of the market renders invisible the old, the poor, the chronically sick and the long-term disabled. But as the winners see their FTSE100 stocks rise, the English will know what it is not to have freedom from fear.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/nhs.health1
Read the small print: Lord Darzi’s report pave the way for Labour to charge for NHS care.
Lord Darzi, the unelected health minister, has signalled that Labour will continue to dismantle and privatise the NHS delivery system, its staff and services – handing taxpayers’ funds to multinational companies, and remodelling the service along the lines of US healthcare.
It is all a far cry from their 1997 manifesto pledge: “Our fundamental purpose is simple but hugely important: to restore the NHS as a public service working cooperatively for patients not a commercial business driven by competition.”
Markets introduce new costs that do not occur in integrated public services: billing, invoicing, marketing and profits. All these divert resources and funds away from the service, creating enormous inefficiency. So what is the government up to?
Darzi provides the clearest sign yet that Labour is planning to introduce charges for healthcare, crossing the final rubicon of NHS privatisation - its funding base.
The commercial sector, unlike NHS public services, has market freedoms that the public sector does not - the freedom to levy charges and restrict care, and to downgrade or deregulate staff terms and conditions. The commercial sector’s first duty is to shareholders and risks must be managed either by reducing staff wages and terms, cherrypicking profitable patients and treatments, or by ensuring that it is not faced with the enormous costs of unpredictable care.
Co-payments and top-up insurance were alien terms a decade ago: they are direct imports from the US healthcare industry. Today they trip off ministers’ tongues. Contrast this with the NHS Plan 2000, which stated that “user charges are unfair and inequitable in they increase the proportion of funding from the unhealthy, old and poor compared with the healthy, young and wealthy.”
In theory, government cannot prevent the private sector from selling health insurance and top up services. In practice, the new providers of healthcare have seen the political unacceptability of introducing charges too early, although the boundaries between what is public and what is private are blurred.
So the Darzi report, instead of renouncing charges, paves the way for them. First, it trails the idea of a NHS constitution which will set out rights for care. In doing so it introduces the notion that there will no longer be NHS open-ended care according to need, following in the footsteps of NHS dentistry and long term care. The constitution reflects the current attempt to redefine NHS care into a basic minimum package. For example, in the newly privatised general practice agreements, the government has fragmented previously integrated services into core, additional and enhanced services. It has ended the open ended duty of care, and introduced the notion of time limits and defined entitlement. How long before the government allows the commercial sector to define a basic package of NHS care, beyond which everything else is paid for and charged for through top ups and co-payments? That, after all, is the American way.
The report also proposes introducing personal budgets. There is no logic to these because individual budgets pass risk down to the patient. But the idea, of a sort of portable voucher system, is a Republican one: patients can get so much care and top up and carry the risks.
Darzi does not renounce charges: “We will ensure that the programme fully supports the principles of the NHS as a comprehensive service, free at the point of use,” he says. But this contrasts with the 1977 NHS Act, which says “services so provided shall be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.”
Labour has crossed its final Rubicon. The NHS Plan 2000 allowed the break-up and commercialisation of NHS services because the government claimed it didn’t matter how services were delivered so long as they were publicly funded. Now tax-based funding is to be undermined, and that means an end to universal coverage.
Universal coverage is not discussed by Darzi, and nor is equitable redistribution on the basis of need. Instead most of his report is dedicated to quality. This is the American way. The US jusitifies the denial of care to 50 million of its people by focusing attention on quality of providers, not access or response to need.
The problem for the government is that no country has a for-profit sector delivering universal healthcare, and it has no evidence to support the policy of a market in healthcare. The Darzi report is simply a glib advertising campaign on behalf of the healthcare industry and a new generation of greedy healthcare entrepreneurs. What of the losers? The hidden hand of the market renders invisible the old, the poor, the chronically sick and the long-term disabled. But as the winners see their FTSE100 stocks rise, the English will know what it is not to have freedom from fear.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/nhs.health1
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Legislation vs social inequality
A very useful website regarding legislation on such issues as mental health, learning disabilities, and LGBT issues is that of Community Care magazine. At that site, there are frequently news stories related to legislation changes and why they matter. The magazine's search engine is so helpful that, with the help of the Community Care magazine on-site search facilities and my grasp of keyword searches, I was able to answer every question correctly in the Community Care [multiple choice] Christmas Quiz 2006. (By contrast, I have had enormous frustrations at the search facilities on Disability Now! magazine's site.)I have also taken a newsagent-reservation copy of the magazine each Friday (current price £2.25), for about the last ten years.
That was a great help to me last year when I was Green Party of England & Wales Disability Spokesperson, and around the year 2000 when I helped a Health Studies student friend with course-related news updating. A great reason for ordering the print copy is that letters page content does not appear on the Web. As an example, I note, that there is a lot of confusion regarding what constitutes a 'learning difficulty' as opposed to a 'learning disability'. Mencap -- an organisation whose name reverberates with 'cap in hand' or 'handicap' mentality -- says that dyslexia, blindness and deafness do not constitute 'learning disabilities'
By contrast, using the social model of disability, a Sense spokesperson wrote the Community Care letters page pointing out that Downs' Syndrome -- labelled a 'learning disability by Mencap -- dyslexia, deafness, blindness, and autism are all impairments that have a bearing on learning. When reasonable adjustments are not made to accommodate the person with the condition -- eg, alternative formats for information communication -- disability occurs. Yet another correspondent pointed out that Mencap's use of the term 'learning disability' is equivalent to the American use of 'mental retardation'.
Alan WheatleyDisability spokesperson for London Green Party
That was a great help to me last year when I was Green Party of England & Wales Disability Spokesperson, and around the year 2000 when I helped a Health Studies student friend with course-related news updating. A great reason for ordering the print copy is that letters page content does not appear on the Web. As an example, I note, that there is a lot of confusion regarding what constitutes a 'learning difficulty' as opposed to a 'learning disability'. Mencap -- an organisation whose name reverberates with 'cap in hand' or 'handicap' mentality -- says that dyslexia, blindness and deafness do not constitute 'learning disabilities'
By contrast, using the social model of disability, a Sense spokesperson wrote the Community Care letters page pointing out that Downs' Syndrome -- labelled a 'learning disability by Mencap -- dyslexia, deafness, blindness, and autism are all impairments that have a bearing on learning. When reasonable adjustments are not made to accommodate the person with the condition -- eg, alternative formats for information communication -- disability occurs. Yet another correspondent pointed out that Mencap's use of the term 'learning disability' is equivalent to the American use of 'mental retardation'.
Alan WheatleyDisability spokesperson for London Green Party
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Thursday, 26 June 2008
UNIONS SEVER ALL LINKS WITH RISE
From: Weir Adrian R1 SA Research/Policy/Campaigns [mailto:Adrian.Weir@unitetheunion.com]
Sent: 23 June 208 13:07
Subject: UNIONS SEVER ALL LINKS WITH RISE
News from
UNITE the UNION
in London
23 June 2008
**** FOR IMMEDIATE USE ****
LONDON UNIONS SEVER ALL LINKS WITH
RISE FESTIVAL
Today (Monday 23 June) the trade unions in London announced that they have withdrawn all support from the Mayor of London's Rise Festival.
The organisation of the event has been a fiasco from start to finish. Arrangements for the festival began under former Mayor Livingstone. Three weeks after the London elections new Mayor Johnson confirmed the event would continue as before.
Then suddenly Mr Johnson's new cultural advisor, Munira Mirza, stripped the festival title of its sub-heading "London United Against Racism" only for the Mayor to say to the BBC that he knew nothing of this decision.
Ms Mirza also banned the Cuba Solidarity Campaign from continuing their joint sponsorship of the Latin American stage in partnership with Unite, and from even participating in the event.
The unions have decided that this package of measures changes the focus and nature of the Rise Festival to such an extent that it will be just another musical event in Finsbury Park, and therefore that money earmarked for anti-racist campaigning will be better spent in other ways.
Megan Dobney, the TUC's London Regional Secretary said: "Trade unions are greatly offended by the removal of the central anti-racist message as well as by the ban on an organisation supported by the TUC. Trade union negotiation has proved fruitless and SERTUC is therefore left with no alternative but to withdraw."
Steve Hart, Unite London Regional Secretary said: "Rise, or Respect as it was known, was launched by the trade unions as a means of involving mainly young people in anti-racism in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence and other racist murders. What is the point of what was explicitly an anti-racist festival if it drops its commitment to anti-racism?"
Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union General Secretary said: "We have supported the Rise Festival as a celebration of London's diverse communities and of anti-racism. It appears that this clear message is now being lost and the FBU no longer feels able to participate. We remain committed to any genuine initiative aimed at combating racism."
This statement is also endorsed by Thompson's Solicitors and the Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils.
**** ends ****
For further please contact: Megan Dobney (TUC) on 020.7467.1220; Steve Hart (Unite) on 07970.081509; Matt Wrack (FBU) on 020.8541.1765
Note to editors:
The Rise Festival started life in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder as the TUC organised Respect anti-racist festival.
The idea was taken up by Ken Livingstone when Mayor, who promoted seven annual festivals during his mayoralty.
During the Livingstone years the name was changed from Respect to Rise.
Cut our pay - no way! Unite members across the country will take part in day of protest against the NHS pay offer. Workers will be campaigning around the slogan – 'Cut my pay - no way!' The union is angry that the government is telling members to accept a pay deal which in the current economic climate represents a significant pay cut. On the 18th July members will demonstrate at hospitals across the country. Find out more on the Cut our pay - no way! campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling all Unite members! Have you voted in the ballot on Unite's new rulebook? Ballot papers must be returned to The Independent Scrutineer to arrive no later than 31st July 2008. Unite members who have not received a ballot paper by 16th July 2008 should contact the enquiry service on 020 8889 9203. Download a pdf of the final draft rules and guide on the ballot.
This correspondence contains information which may be privileged. It is intended for the recipient(s) only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this correspondence, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply. The contents, comments and views contained or expressed within this correspondence do not necessarily reflect those of the T&G, its subsidiaries, affiliates or associates.
If you want to know more about the T&G, visit us at www.tgwu.org.uk or contact our head office on 020 7611 2500.
.
Sent: 23 June 208 13:07
Subject: UNIONS SEVER ALL LINKS WITH RISE
News from
UNITE the UNION
in London
23 June 2008
**** FOR IMMEDIATE USE ****
LONDON UNIONS SEVER ALL LINKS WITH
RISE FESTIVAL
Today (Monday 23 June) the trade unions in London announced that they have withdrawn all support from the Mayor of London's Rise Festival.
The organisation of the event has been a fiasco from start to finish. Arrangements for the festival began under former Mayor Livingstone. Three weeks after the London elections new Mayor Johnson confirmed the event would continue as before.
Then suddenly Mr Johnson's new cultural advisor, Munira Mirza, stripped the festival title of its sub-heading "London United Against Racism" only for the Mayor to say to the BBC that he knew nothing of this decision.
Ms Mirza also banned the Cuba Solidarity Campaign from continuing their joint sponsorship of the Latin American stage in partnership with Unite, and from even participating in the event.
The unions have decided that this package of measures changes the focus and nature of the Rise Festival to such an extent that it will be just another musical event in Finsbury Park, and therefore that money earmarked for anti-racist campaigning will be better spent in other ways.
Megan Dobney, the TUC's London Regional Secretary said: "Trade unions are greatly offended by the removal of the central anti-racist message as well as by the ban on an organisation supported by the TUC. Trade union negotiation has proved fruitless and SERTUC is therefore left with no alternative but to withdraw."
Steve Hart, Unite London Regional Secretary said: "Rise, or Respect as it was known, was launched by the trade unions as a means of involving mainly young people in anti-racism in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence and other racist murders. What is the point of what was explicitly an anti-racist festival if it drops its commitment to anti-racism?"
Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union General Secretary said: "We have supported the Rise Festival as a celebration of London's diverse communities and of anti-racism. It appears that this clear message is now being lost and the FBU no longer feels able to participate. We remain committed to any genuine initiative aimed at combating racism."
This statement is also endorsed by Thompson's Solicitors and the Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils.
**** ends ****
For further please contact: Megan Dobney (TUC) on 020.7467.1220; Steve Hart (Unite) on 07970.081509; Matt Wrack (FBU) on 020.8541.1765
Note to editors:
The Rise Festival started life in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder as the TUC organised Respect anti-racist festival.
The idea was taken up by Ken Livingstone when Mayor, who promoted seven annual festivals during his mayoralty.
During the Livingstone years the name was changed from Respect to Rise.
Cut our pay - no way! Unite members across the country will take part in day of protest against the NHS pay offer. Workers will be campaigning around the slogan – 'Cut my pay - no way!' The union is angry that the government is telling members to accept a pay deal which in the current economic climate represents a significant pay cut. On the 18th July members will demonstrate at hospitals across the country. Find out more on the Cut our pay - no way! campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling all Unite members! Have you voted in the ballot on Unite's new rulebook? Ballot papers must be returned to The Independent Scrutineer to arrive no later than 31st July 2008. Unite members who have not received a ballot paper by 16th July 2008 should contact the enquiry service on 020 8889 9203. Download a pdf of the final draft rules and guide on the ballot.
This correspondence contains information which may be privileged. It is intended for the recipient(s) only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this correspondence, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply. The contents, comments and views contained or expressed within this correspondence do not necessarily reflect those of the T&G, its subsidiaries, affiliates or associates.
If you want to know more about the T&G, visit us at www.tgwu.org.uk or contact our head office on 020 7611 2500.
.
Monday, 23 June 2008
OPEN LETTER To Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
23/06/2008
OPEN LETTER To Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
Dear Mr Johnson,
I notice that inspite of the embarrassing resignation of one of your aides; you have been being quoted in a favourable light in some of the papers today. The Evening Standard mentions you speaking of “...my passionate belief that racism is vile, repulsive and has no place in modern Britain.” (P8 23/6/2008) and both the Standard and the Guardian cite “...clear and unambiguous opposition to any racist tendencies.” (Guardian p.6).
Opposition to racism is supported by most Londoners, and Greens and Trades Unionists from all over the world, but what many of us would like to know is how you square, laudable statements such as the above, with the instruction reported to be emanating from City Hall that the Rise festival will no longer have “anti-racism as its central message and ordering the dropping of the message "London united against racism" and all reference to opposing racism.
If such a directive has actually been issued with your authority I suggest that you withdraw it forthwith and publicise this as widely as possible, since it sends a very dangerous message at a time when the BNP has just managed to get a GLA rep elected. At such a time it is hardly credible to maintain that you oppose racism but no longer believe that it is a serious problem in London, so unless you reverse the ill-advised tinkering with the Rise festival and its anti-racist ethos, your words about racism will just seem like so much pious claptrap.
Just like New Labour spin. I’m sure that you wouldn’t want that.
Yours sincerely
Peter Murry
Secretary Green Party TU Group
OPEN LETTER To Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
Dear Mr Johnson,
I notice that inspite of the embarrassing resignation of one of your aides; you have been being quoted in a favourable light in some of the papers today. The Evening Standard mentions you speaking of “...my passionate belief that racism is vile, repulsive and has no place in modern Britain.” (P8 23/6/2008) and both the Standard and the Guardian cite “...clear and unambiguous opposition to any racist tendencies.” (Guardian p.6).
Opposition to racism is supported by most Londoners, and Greens and Trades Unionists from all over the world, but what many of us would like to know is how you square, laudable statements such as the above, with the instruction reported to be emanating from City Hall that the Rise festival will no longer have “anti-racism as its central message and ordering the dropping of the message "London united against racism" and all reference to opposing racism.
If such a directive has actually been issued with your authority I suggest that you withdraw it forthwith and publicise this as widely as possible, since it sends a very dangerous message at a time when the BNP has just managed to get a GLA rep elected. At such a time it is hardly credible to maintain that you oppose racism but no longer believe that it is a serious problem in London, so unless you reverse the ill-advised tinkering with the Rise festival and its anti-racist ethos, your words about racism will just seem like so much pious claptrap.
Just like New Labour spin. I’m sure that you wouldn’t want that.
Yours sincerely
Peter Murry
Secretary Green Party TU Group
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)