Previous thread on the NBS campaign here: http://libcom.org/forums/organise/blood-service-dispute-trying-raise-awareness?page=1
Appeal For Advice And Support - IWW Save Our National Blood Service Campaign
So far the campaign has distributed around 55,000 leaflets across the country. There have been three national leaflets, two from the wobs.
This one: http://tinyurl.com/2zy38l
This one: http://tinyurl.com/ynp6eg
And this one: http://tinyurl.com/364cja
[pdfs]
We are moving now to our second national workplace bulletin, which is being very well received.
The first bulletin (again .pdf), is available here: http://tinyurl.com/2s8448
The second here: http://tinyurl.com/38oye3
this is about the IWW part of the campaign. of course the big unions are (slowly but surely) getting onto the issue too. i'm not going to say much more about the details on a public forum, but we wouldn't be doing so much if we didn't have a reasonable number of IWW members in the NBS heading the campaign up, if you see what i mean...
i think although it is IWW members doing this, there are a number of non-members and members of other unions who are also taking part (e.g. on the blood service chat forums, contributing to the blog, etc), especially in the midlands where the campaign is biggest.
Quote:
when you say IWW campaign, is it only IWW members who are involved? what about NBS workers, what's their involvement? UNISON?
UNISON and Unite (Amicus), have recognition agreements. They have opposed the plans, and have played a role in staff negotiations with the management. Union density within the service is patchy though.
The real strength of the campaign has been in growing staff militancy and anger over the cuts plans.
As a result of that anger the IWW has been growing in the service as some staff have begun to see us a viable choice because we are opposed to partnership, not tied to any political parties, and are controlled directly by our members, and we will fight tooth and nail in a way that other unions wouldn't countenance.
The reality is though that regardless of the organisations which make up much of this fightback, the strength of the campaign is in the workers and supporters who comprise it. That strength and militancy has been growing. That's the real story here.
The IWW aims to facilitate and support those folks in taking further action. We have our own take on matters but the campaign is bigger and more important than any one union.
The IWW as a small and growing union within the service is looking to be a creative and supportive tendency within the movement against the cuts. Winning the campaign and building up workers organisation is what really matters here.
In the past week the facebook group (Save our Blood Service - if you're not a member hurry up and join! It's located in facebook groups under:
Common Interest - Beliefs & Causes) has grown by nearly 100 members.
In the past month we have seen those registering support for the public campaign shoot from 500 people to now edging 750.
A thousand members of the campaign in email contact is our goal within the next week.
It's clear that public support for the campaign is mounting... 
The IWW has launched a new campaign website to coincide with the launch of the second phase of the campaign.
Rgular updares on what the IWW is doing will be posted here: www.iwwnbs.wordpress.com
John. wrote:
when you say IWW campaign, is it only IWW members who are involved? what about NBS workers, what's their involvement? UNISON?
Strange wording John - are we only allowed to be one set of acronyms now?! 
I think its been useful that those of us who are IWW members and simultaneously in other bits of the NHS can spread the word about the struggle of our comrades in the blood service. I certainly didn't hear anything about it via unison! (I'm a dual carder) However because being in IWW alerted me to the campaign I have talked to others on the wards and elsewhere in the health service about whats going on, and therefore been a part of networking workers within NHS about cuts/closures/job threats/privatisation of one otherwise isolated part of the NHS.
I hope that with better communication with eg our solfed healthworker comrades (I mention solfed purely as an example because we have had previous constructive healthworker collaboration) we can be even more successful in this.
One of the reasons NBS bosses claim that the closures are justified is that the demand for blood is falling. They have not attempted to justify this claim... Because it''s balls.
Breathless NBS 'URGENT' communique with hospitals over blood shortages, 26/11/07
Quote:
The national stock of group AB non-UK MB FFP has now fallen to critically low levels. Negotiations with our USA plasma supplier have confirmed that they cannot increase supplies of AB plasma further.
In the Auditor Generals report the role of the National Blood Service's regional cross subsidisation and networking of blood stocks was praised as being responsive to the fuel crisis, when all the fuel depots were blocked. The fact that the NBS was able to move blood stocks around the country rapidly to cope with the fact that fuel was likely to run low, was seen as one of the strengths of the service. Naturally with just three centres in Bristol, Colindale and Manchester, as is planned, the NBS would not be able to do this.
Auditor General's 2000 Report into NBS (see page 22, below)
This obviously raises safety concerns about what might happen in future if the NBS is slashed as is planned....
Neither did I until yesterday but we're preparing an analysis of the restructuring for the campaign. It appears on the face of it that the current cuts are a continuation of an earlier Tory plan to privatise the service... More on that later though when everything's been pulled together.
dundee and ginger, thanks for the answers.
Dundee_United wrote:
UNISON and Unite (Amicus), have recognition agreements. They have opposed the plans, and have played a role in staff negotiations with the management. Union density within the service is patchy though.The real strength of the campaign has been in growing staff militancy and anger over the cuts plans.
As a result of that anger the IWW has been growing in the service as some staff have begun to see us a viable choice because we are opposed to partnership, not tied to any political parties, and are controlled directly by our members, and we will fight tooth and nail in a way that other unions wouldn't countenance.
The reality is though that regardless of the organisations which make up much of this fightback, the strength of the campaign is in the workers and supporters who comprise it. That strength and militancy has been growing. That's the real story here.
The IWW aims to facilitate and support those folks in taking further action. We have our own take on matters but the campaign is bigger and more important than any one union.
The IWW as a small and growing union within the service is looking to be a creative and supportive tendency within the movement against the cuts. Winning the campaign and building up workers organisation is what really matters here.
Yeah, that's what I'd think, so the only thing that's struck me so far is your releases calling this an "IWW campaign," like the one in the library. Fair enough it does seem like you guys are leading it, but your numbers are going to be small, and as you say if it's going to be successful is going to need to be much much bigger. I mean I see that you want to get your name out, and you want to grow from it, but I'd worry that it makes the campaign look a bit exclusive - more exclusive than you have described it here. You would want (and need) the involvement of workers who wouldn't agree with the politics of the IWW, for example.
By my question I didn't mean to imply UNISON or Unite would do anything about these cuts, I'm sure they won't, unless forced to, though militants within them will be useful.
It'd probably be worth getting in touch with at least the more militant areas of the NHS, like Manchester (mental health esp)
Is there any non-strike industrial pressure workers could exert, which you could push for? withdrawal of goodwill, overtime ban, etc.? civil servants are starting theirs today in their pay row.
Staff campaign press release sent out this morning:-
http://nbs-sos.blogspot.com/2007/12/latest-news-release-campaigners-slam.html
Quote:
You would want (and need) the involvement of workers who wouldn't agree with the politics of the IWW, for example.
This is undoubtedly true, and is the case for any mass campaign, however the IWW in the NBS is not a bunch of libcommies who like the wobs but militant workers angry about the fact the other unions do fuckall. We're a pole in a struggle in that sense and being honest wins us a fair bit of praise from many staff who are deeply suspicious of labour party affiliated partnership unions.
At the same time there is a need to constructively build as much opposition as possible. Our activists are doing that as workers in the service and supporters on the outside. We just need to be careful to be constructive while making our own point on organisational matters clear.
Some of our peeps are in touch with Man. Mental Health branch. Those folks did a tour of some NBS facilities a few months back to build links. On your other questions I'll have more information in a few weeks.
Hi John
Regarding your understandable points. As a staff member I'd like to assure you that the campaign is covering all conceivable bases in terms of publicity and appeals for help and support. We are well in touch with other militant parts of the NHS. We are using networks within both UNISON and Unite, trades councils, social networking websites, media and blogging contacts, along with a general Save the Blood Service public face for friends and family, people local to the centres, or patients. We realised from the start the need to stretch way beyond the limitations of what any union (no matter how good) solely can do.
One of the best things that is happening is NBS staff in various different regional centres across the country finally beginning to know each other by name and face, and chat about their experiences and the mood or morale in their area. I can't describe what a leap forward this really is, paltry as it sounds. This is the most promising tiny acorn for the future. But to make the most of it, the campaign will have to defeat the cuts first, to make sure that these staff remain staff!
We (my blood centre anyway) are in touch with Manchester Mental Health (as a workplace, not a trade union branch) and have had 2 hardship fund collections, invited strikers to visit and sent NBS people to 2 demos in support. Manchester blood centre is also good friends with the Mental Health strikers.
People are joining the IWW who would not describe themselves as political, but who don't want to pay money to a Labour-party affiliated, corrupt and moribund business union. The IWW has earned its stripes as it were by being so unrelenting and concertedly active on the cause. The reason being that members whose jobs are at stake are driving IWW policy. Unlike the mainstream unions, whose policy-making officers, at the end of the day, deep down really aren't all THAT bothered what happens to the Blood Service, and certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.
Dundee_United wrote:
The reality is though that regardless of the organisations which make up much of this fightback, the strength of the campaign is in the workers and supporters who comprise it...The IWW aims to facilitate and support those folks in taking further action. We have our own take on matters but the campaign is bigger and more important than any one union.
Well said.
Quote:
At the same time there is a need to constructively build as much opposition as possible.
But it's really no different from an electoral-marketing-style campaign, like the Fire Brigade stuff that kicked off a while back in the West Country. It’s a value-laden argument about how best to distribute government money. You think Daily Mail readers don’t already share in the IWW’s “opposition” to the government’s plans? If the cuts are deferred, it’ll only legitimise the NBS’s management by showing them to be responsive to public opinion. As it did to the Fire Brigade down in Cornwall.
There will be no rolling over. Trust me.
Yes, of course people of all persuasions share the opposition to the plans. Becasue they are ridiculous and dangerous! This is not a campaign exclusive to radicals. If your veins contain blood it is relevant to you.
The urgency of the matter means that all tactics are being used, 'by whatever means necessary' (and possible) in order to stop the cuts. That is not the end of the matter - there is a longer term organising picture. But as I said above, what use is that if the service is wrecked and the cuts made?
Carousel wrote:
If the cuts are deferred, it’ll only legitimise the NBS’s management by showing them to be responsive to public opinion.
So you would rather the cuts happen????!!!?????? Thanks comrade! I don't think in the real world they will feel very legitimised at all. Last time a plan like this was beaten, the NBS bosses at that time were dismissed.
Carousel wrote:
It’s a value-laden argument about how best to distribute government money.
The NBS and the NHS do - surprisingly - cost money. It looks likely we will still have currency next year...
Please, trust that there is a long-term goal here, and appreciate the urgency of this fight. This is not a theoretical discussion to pick apart. We have to protect the service in the immediate-term before you start beard stroking and chewing over how it matches up with what's on your bookshelf. Feel free to do that later.
Quote:
Last time a plan like this was beaten, the NBS bosses at that time were dismissed.
Indeed. The Auditor General notes factually:-
Quote:
Organisational changes1.17 The Statutory Instruments of 1993 and 1994 that set up the National Blood Authority and transferred the blood centres from individual regional health authorities provided for the creation of a single national service. This necessitated restructuring, and the National Blood Authority retained a firm of consultants, Bain & Co, to advise it on how to proceed. Bain & Co recommended structural changes and identified opportunities for performance improvements. However, the way in which the Service implemented certain changes, in particular the scaling down of the Liverpool Blood Centre, led to considerable concerns among users and employees. Consequently, in August 1997, the Secretary of State appointed Professor John Cash to review the clinical concerns raised about the Service's proposals to transfer bulk processing and testing of blood from Liverpool to Manchester. Professor Cash's key conclusions and recommendations are summarised at Appendix 2. Following publication of the report in March 1998, the Secretary of State dismissed the National Blood Authority's chairman. Subsequently, a special committee of the National Blood Authority decided to dismiss the chief executive. The chairman received no compensation for loss of office. The chief executive received six months pay (to which he was contractually entitled) and an out of court settlement for breach of contract by the National Blood Authority. In addition, the Authority made a lump sum payment on his behalf to the NHS Pensions Agency.
It can and will happen again.
Quote:
This is not a theoretical discussion to pick apart. We have to protect the service in the immediate-term before you start beard stroking
Beard stroking is not on the agenda. There are two questions I have for you...
1.
Even if you garner majority support, you'll only defer the cuts not stop them (by electoral pressure, as already pointed out). Cuts will have to come from somewhere, unless you advocate printing money like the Labour governments of the 70's. Do you?
2.
If you think these cuts are dangerous, and I’m sure they are, like the Fire Service cuts, why do think they’re being proposed? Why put up with all the aggravation of forcing through these cuts, who is doing it, and why? Don’t tell me it’s just a question of goodies-versus-baddies. Maybe you’re just being led up a garden path in order to negotiate a more marginal change, the one the various management actually want to make.
Quote:
Following publication of the report in March 1998, the Secretary of State dismissed the National Blood Authority's chairman. Subsequently, a special committee of the National Blood Authority decided to dismiss the chief executive. The chairman received no compensation for loss of office.
Social democracy in action. Defend the Secretary of State's brave decision. Thank God for New Labour.
Quote:
Cuts will have to come from somewhere, unless you advocate printing money like the Labour governments of the 70's. Do you?
the NBS is actually operating very comfortably in the black. get your facts right before you say stuff please.
Quote:
If you think these cuts are dangerous, and I’m sure they are, like the Fire Service cuts, why do think they’re being proposed? Why put up with all the aggravation of forcing through these cuts, who is doing it, and why?
why: cost-saving, 'rationalisation', 'streamlining', etc. who: high-level civil servants and NBS directors. i don't see what's so controversial, nor what you're getting at.
why are you so eager to snipe about this?
Quote:
why are you so eager to snipe about this?
Is that how you argue with any member of the public not immediately sold on "protecting the NBS"?
Quote:
the NBS is actually operating very comfortably in the black
Hence the cuts, if its "very comfortable" it can afford to operate on less.
Quote:
cost-saving, 'rationalisation', 'streamlining'
So either it is, as you say, saving money. Or it's not. Which is it? Now the money saved may not be worth the degradation of service in your book, but it’s presumably not the case for the Government you elected or the great chain of burecracy that extends down to those who feel especially moved to "join" the campaign.
And what about the great swathes of people who remain indifferent to the campaign. Are they evil or misguided? Why do they think it’s not such a bad idea? You think action is a matter of awareness, what action outside of marching up and down waving banners are you advocating? The least you could do is push for a strike, let’s see how long the NBS lasts then.
Well in government its all matter of budgeting and budgeting is a matter of priorities. I don't think its a problem at all for us to make demands on the government and use what resources we have to enforce those demands. This line of argument is really rediculous, are honestly saying that workers in the blood service shouldn't fight job cuts?
Carousel wrote:
Is that how you argue with any member of the public not immediately sold on "protecting the NBS"?
no, it's what i ask snipers. now if i answer your questions, it's good courtesy for you to answer mine. why are you finding this thread so important? is it because you made a stupid remark, got called for it, and are not big enough to admit that it was a stupid remark and move on?
Quote:
if its "very comfortable" it can afford to operate on less.
the fact is, it doesn't 'need' to implement cuts. therefore the cuts aren't necessary. but you seem to imply that they are.
Quote:
So either it is, as you say, saving money. Or it's not. Which is it?
i already answered that question.
Quote:
And what about the great swathes of people who remain indifferent to the campaign. Are they evil or misguided?
don't be ludicrous, they're just not interested. sometimes people are interested in some things, other times some people are not interested in other things.
Quote:
You think action is a matter of awareness, what action outside of marching up and down waving banners are you advocating? The least you could do is push for a strike, let’s see how long the NBS lasts then.
i don't think action is a matter of awareness. in fact it's a lot more than that. plus your suggestion that a strike would topple the NBS is utterly bizarre.
Nate wrote:
Why are cuts inevitable?
Carousel wrote:
Why can't we just print as much money as the public sector's middle managers want?
Carousel, that's a non-answer. I've now figured out you're a troll, so no need to waste either of our time by responding further. If you _really_ need to kill time, please allow me to suggest Funeral Quest.
Comrades and friends,
This is an appeal for comments, advice and more especially any support which you can offer. The IWW in the UK has made a struggle against attempts to axe 600 jobs in the National Blood Service (NBS) our British Isles Regional Organising Committee's current organisational priority.
[The NBS collects, filters, processes and sorts England's blood stocks and then supplies blood to hospitals. It is part of the NHS.]
Background
Our involvement in the campaign is part of our strategy to build an IU network in the health service. Our job branch in the service has been growing and expanding, and we've just launched a major new phase in the campaign, in the run up to the final decision over the planned cuts due in January, following a review by management consultants.
[There is more background here: * http://libcom.org/library/iww-launches-second-phase-national-campaign-02122007
* http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6986]
It would be useful to hear what comrades have to say about this. It is critical that we win this campaign, in terms of the survival of this part of the NHS, and in terms of active workplace struggle this is something that has been building the involvement of healthcare workers in the service and gaining momentum.
Blood Service staff protest cuts in Southampton
* The facebook group (Save Our National Blood Service) now has well over 650 members - most of whom are staff, or friends and family of staff.
* We've seen the birth of a workplace bulletin by pissed off staff members.
* There is now a growing online staff forum.
* There is a campaign blog (www.nbs-sos.blogspot.com) with a growing number of visitors.
* 55,000 leaflets have been distributed nationally.
* Staff have held stalls about the campaign up and down the country, and attended demonstrations against the plans, and against NHS cuts.
It's likely that the networks of staff and supporters that have been built up are only going to continue to grow through time. However if the campaign is lost most of the staff in the blood service will either be sacked or replaced in the cuts when the supercentres are built and we won't be able to see the benefits of this previous workplace activity. On these terms alone that would be detrimental to the class struggle.
However perhaps more seriously, the plans as they stand make no sense and will likely lead to patient deaths from shortages of blood stocks in hospitals, and it has been demonstrated in various studies that the bosses' plans to centralise ("rationalise" / "streamline") the service do not make sense on their own terms. 'Supercentres' are less efficient at processing and sorting blood and backlogs will be created. Blood will also then have to travel hundreds of miles to reach hospitals if the plans go ahead, instead of just being distributed by local distribution centres with good working links and relationships with hospitals. On the other hand 'supercentres' are a lot easier to be sold off to the private sector... That will obviously benefit everyone, yeah? If the cuts go ahead people - particularly vulnerable groups like haemophiliacs - may die as a result of blood shortages, and we will all lose out.
So everyone knows what contemptible human beings we are dealing with, the current boss Clive Ronaldson (a man who has been specially appointed by the board to 'lead' the review due to his particular 'skills base') has made a constant refrain of repeating to staff how he has "been involved in many movements of products and closures of factories, in the past." Additionally all the NBS bosses were appointed by the Government in 2005 in a big shakeup of the service due to their skills in the corporate and management world. It appears likely the closure plans might have been on the cards since the shakeup, as since the NBS bosses appointment by the Labour Party Government the service has went from making reasonable profits and running an efficient operation to being told it needs to restructure urgently by a board, who have for the most part never worked a day in the NBS. This is despite a climate where the demand for blood products and the prices they command has been on the increase. These cuts are not factually justified and there is no evidence to support them but it does fit the neo-liberal ideological mantra. Defeating these plans then would also represent a victory what amounts to privatisation plans.
Hit them hard
As the review draws to a close the IWW is gearing up for a big punch. We need it if we are going to win, but with enough pressure we really can defeat these plans. The campaign has forced the current review of the cuts and it's clear that resistance to the cuts is growing. We really need help from supporters at this time though. We have built a job branch and we have provided concrete assistance in the campaign, but right now we really need to stick the boot in over the next month. Any advice or pledges of support would be extremely welcome and helpful. A lot depends on a victory here, however equally a lot can be done to ensure we get one. We are going to need to build increasing and escalating pressure on the government to step in, as they are the ones ultimately in charge.
Can you help?
It would be extremely useful to read what comrades have to say about this or if any comrades have any suggestions or think they can lend us a hand in some way. We can win and we have to win, but we must up the anti fast. Suggestions and help towards that would be very helpful. With the second phase of the campaign, we are also launching a new campaign bulletin for all the campaign's supporters. If you would like to receive the bulletin, please either send me a PM, or write to:- iww.nbs@googlemail.com If you have any questions about the campaign you can also get in touch with the IWW job branch directly via this email address.
---
Additional documents - FYI:-
* Flaws in the NBS centralisation strategy and staff visions for progress
Staff also have a vision for how the service should be ran, informed by working in the service at the frontline for many years.
* Economies of scale in blood banking: a study based on data envelopment analysis
An academic study which demonstrates large blood centres are less efficient.
* The NHSBT HR Strategy
The NBS bosses' programme for slashing and burning.
* NHSBT Service Strategy
NBS Bosses' overarching strategy. This stuff is really shaky. It includes such gems as:-
"Throughout this period of significant change, it will be vital that the organisation is able to maintain the commitment and motivation of its staff at
all levels in addition to developing and implementing new working arrangements. A key challenge will be to provide the appropriate leadership
at all levels and maintain motivation during a period of substantial change [...] Effective delivery of this plan is dependent on NHSBT’s ability to secure the understanding, agreement and support of various groups and individuals. NHSBT has developed and will maintain a clear corporate narrative in order to outline the challenges facing the organisation. NHSBT will communicate clearly, consistently and coherently, especially with regards to specific structural and organisational changes. During the course of developments Corporate Communications & Affairs will work to raise awareness and acceptance of the very real need for change at every stage. This will also help to build a general sense of understanding and thus momentum for the need for change."