GMB needs more democracy
On 7 April Kevin Curran resigned as General Secretary of the GMB union, to be replaced as acting General Secretary by the man whom he defeated in the election for the job two years, Paul Kenny.
Curran had been suspended as General Secretary on allegations of misdeeds in the election. Now a joint statement by him and the union says that he leaves with “his reputation and integrity intact… Each party has agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. Neither party will be making any further statement”.
A union activist comments on the background to these moves:
The key issue in the GMB is who runs the union. At present the GMB is run by the Regional Secretaries. Any trade unionist who looks at the rule book can see this.
The Regional Secretaries are appointed officials, but under the rule book they are the decisive factor in the regional committees that appoint them. The regions have control of finance and so can determine what the Central Executive Committee and the national leadership are able to do. Input to the GMB congress and the Executive is effectively controlled by the regional structures.
The fact that union branch life is weak in the GMB helps let the regions dominate. But the rulebook itself is a factor in the domination.
The Regional Secretaries have great scope to decide on jobs and priorities in a way that maintains their power. They will support campaigns and struggles from time to time as they need to, but only those that do not affect their position.
They can be effective fake left-wingers when they need to be, in fact, all things to everybody. However, they run the union in order to maintain their power.
In the closure of the GMB’s National College, a big issue in the union, it was the Regional Secretaries who made the decision, not the Curran leadership, although Curran went along with it because the finances were not there.
Curran, in a crude and not very clear way, tried to reform the union and take on the power of the Regional Secretaries.
He at no time tried to build support in the union to do that, either with officials or with rank and file activists. But the key priority for GMB activists should be to take the power away from the Regional Secretaries and open up some democratic space to begin building and developing effective shop stewards’ and workplace organisation.
For two years, since Curran’s election, the Regional Secretaries have created huge and intense infighting in the GMB. They have been fighting to maintain their power in the union, and they have succeeded.
The most hopeful sign now is the talk of merger with Amicus and the TGWU. That will enable GMB activists who want change to feel confident enough to begin to move and discuss and fight within the debates about the shape of a new union. There are lots of good trade unionists in the GMB who want change, and the run up to the merger may help galvanise them.
However, Paul Kenny now has the power to negotiate on behalf of the Regional Secretaries over the merger.
He is aware that they will not all get the jobs that they want in the new union; but they can ensure that they get the maximum pay off. Already he is talking about hiking up the wages of the national officers and the Regional Secretaries. He has also brought back into the union, pro tem, a lot of former officials who had already received huge pay-offs to retire.
If the merger goes pear-shaped, I think Paul Kenny will get the GMB rule changed which bans an acting General Secretary from standing for General Secretary, or put into place a new General Secretary who will be one of his allies.
The key issues are to build a democratic union with membership control, clear open debate around ideas and issues, and a strategy that develops an effective shop stewards’ movement, able to fight back in the workplace and develop workplace organisation.
We need a different type of relationship with the Government.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
How to get more democracy in GMB - Support Kenny
As another GMB activist I think this analysis is wrong in some important points although right in its ambitions.
I don't think there is any evidence that Curran tried to reform the union in any way - in fact his election "victory" relied on the deals he did with the worst and most corrupt regional secretaries in Scotland and Lancashire and in the South - and this started to come out in various sex harrassment tribunals during Christmas where Curran's allies turned on him and spilled the beans. The allegations he faced and which prompted his resignation all came from these former allies and until Christmas 2004 the regional secretaries were in no way acting as a single bloc opposing Curran. That came later when the extent of the allegations into Curran's deception and corruption became apparent
While in power, his only ambition was to dismantle all local and regional structures and replace them with an AMICUS style top down autocracy - including his plan to close down all local branches announced in the Guardian last Summer. There is no doubt the regional structure in the GMB needs reforming and this will be a big part of the reform within the union now Curran has gone - however a reformed regional structure more open and democratic allows a federal democracy to take place and can give the members much more say in what goes on in their area than a centralised London based operation.
On the wages of national officers Paul Kenny immediately opposed after his appointment the increase of 10% agreed by Curran and launched a job evaluation and crackdown on foreign junkets for the national officers. The reform of the union will need to encompass a hard look at the role of the national union and the money it has wasted.
As far as I am aware only one official has been brought back to do a job and that is the person who used to organise the union's conference. Incidentally Curran allowed 150 officers and staff to go last year at a massive cost to the union despite legal advice that this was foolish - and wages have been cut for all officers and staff this week to pay for this extravagence. This has left us short of representation and support where we need it.
I think the issues are exactly as set out - to build a democratic union accountable to its members and free from the corruption that has dogged it for 2 years. Personally I doubt Kenny will stand for election - but we shall see.
What is true in my view is that the full inquiry into the alleged vote rigging in 2003 and employers' funding of Curran's campaign needs to be finished and action taken before the union can possibly be in a position to run a fair election. The inquiry reports in October and I would appeal to all comrades to support those seeking to root out corruption in the GMB, reform the union and bring back decision making to the lay members. I believe Paul Kenny is trying to achieve this and has the support of large sections of the union, including most of the regional secretaries who are committed to change.
The merger for me is not the answer. The truth is all three unions suffer from internal problems with corrupted democracy and powerful factions - and bringing them together before these are rooted out will only compound the problems as it did to an extent with the UNISON merger.
I believe after years of Edmonds and Curran's dismantling of lay democracy, this is the chance for the GMB to turm around and reform itself and we should give ourselves the chance to sort it out before jumping into bed with AMICUS and TGWU
GMB
If only half of the allegations about Kevin Curran turn out to be true, where does this leave the current Deputy General Secretary who stood and was elected on the same platform as him, supporting his every move.