Facility time, shoppies and conveynors

No

If your workmates feel as strongly as you do about it get them organised to chuck the lazy stewards out an elect some decent accountable ones that see it as a duty rather than a skive.

Facility time can be really useful and important - that's not to say stuff shouldn't be done in people's free time, but decent reps will use their facility time to organise, and plan and prepare even run training sessions for themselves on key topics.

Edited to add - when management use individual cases of piss taking sickness to attack sick pay we don't say "yeah fair cop take it all away", we say deal with the individual in question.

Hold his kitkats ransom, failing that stab the fucker, or don't.

Edit: I think I need to go to one of those Solfed organising things lol.

From an a-s viewpoint, facility time has its drawbacks, but we would wnat organisation to be carried out at work during the bosses' time if we are strong enough. The only safeguard is to have them recallable, and rotated and subject to fixed term. I'm guessing you're on piece rates or something similar, hence why it is a much more cushy number being a shop steward.

Ooh, I don't know. I used to take a really, really hardline stance on facility time to the point that I'd vote against anyone who has any facility time joining SF. I've moderated that position, but I'd still be very wary of any A/S union having facility time.

Recognition, representation,and individual grievances seem to be built into the very concept of facility time. In any A/S union, we'd want to deal with all grievances collectively and without mediation. Besides, if all our activists only spend their time organising militant direct actions, I don't really see capital granting us facility time unless they think it can use that to dampen/control the our union/the workforce.

This.

Facility time can and does have the effect of isolating shop stewards from the workers. Plasma's example above is not untypical of my experience. If the stewards are just out for extra overtime or days off at meetings with meals, etc., then facility time can be for them. The same for the number of stewards who see their position as a bridge towards lower management. I've come across plenty of both these types. But the majority of stewards, I would say, are well-meaning, militant workers and facility time further isolates them in the union/management framework and away from the workers.

The right wing of the bourgeoisie complain about the state subsidising the trade unions through local authority, NHS, etc., payments for facility time. The left put forwards the position that it's beneficial for the UK economy through increases in productivity and various savings for employers (see the TUC's "facts about facility time"). Both positions are against the working class.

I was literally just reading about this today (UNISON magazine) and I was thinking just how fucked those arguments are.

"For every one pound spent on trade union facility time in the public sector, between two and five pounds is saved in costs of dismissal and exit rates. This is a very good return on investment."

It's a key argument for resisting Tory attacks on facility time in the public sector, it's why it's possible to get decent facilities agreements in the private sector.

It's an argument to the employers - I used it myself the other day with a private contractor.

I'm sorry tho, Vanilla, but that's the critique of reps in a nutshell. I realise you don't have to believe in the arguments you make towards the employer, but that's because reps are in a fundamentally mediatory position. It reminds me of this bit from libcom's intro to the union's discussion:

I can't believe that people are surprised by this! This isn't just Unison, this is the argument all unions are using against Tory attacks on facility time. And indeed it's probably the reason why Parliament voted against the attacks on facility time.

I would agree with baboon, above, entirely. Most of us reps are sincere militants, but having facility time does isolate you from the workforce. I was a much better "militant" before I had facility time, basically because my job was so unbearable that I just cause trouble constantly. But being away from the shopfloor regularly you are not as part of the core workforce anymore, and also because the union rep duties are quite pleasant (representing/helping individual workers with disciplinaries, underperformance, discrimination etc) it has certainly dulled my anti-work vigour.

Not only that, but I find that with teams I don't working directly I am reluctant to encourage them to take direct action, as whatever happens I won't be negatively affected if it goes wrong. And I don't really want to encourage others to put themselves on the line when I'm not doing so myself (in my own team this is not the case, as I will suffer the same consequences as everyone else).

On the productivity thing, it's definitely true. Through my taking on individual shit managers I've saved my employer tens of thousands of pounds (probably into six figures by now) in legal costs which would have resulted from tribunals. Not only that, but worker gripes which without a union rep would lower productivity in terms of workers just being angry about it (and not wanting to tell management, for fear of victimisation) and as a result slacking off. But if you have a union rep, they can tell the rep the problem, and she/he can tell management so they can often resolve the issue quickly and get employee goodwill/productivity back (especially if it's something which won't cost them any money, and TBH most things which people are angry about are often to do with poor communication).

now, I do like our critique. However in terms of "believing in the arguments". In capitalist terms I do believe the union argument, as having recognised unions with paid facility time does increase worker productivity and save employer legal costs (as lawyer wages are much much higher than lay rep salaries!).

Of course, it doesn't mean that as a result you think that unions are the be all and the end all, or that you want to increase productivity. However, we have to acknowledge that most workers don't want revolution all the time, they want a happier working environment in the present. Although of course a happier working environment will probably dampen struggle.

What happened in my team I think is quite interesting on this front. We had a really bullying management team a few years ago, and as a result it really helped my organising efforts. We had some really good disputes (which I have written about here), and were really getting somewhere, ending up with a big yes in a strike vote (97% on a 70% turnout on 100% density, although the union didn't allow an official ballot, wankers). But after that the management team all quit, and got replaced by a new management team, who were very union friendly, and keen to run new practices by the union first to see if workers would be happy with them.

Now, as a communist this is a bit crap because it means we haven't had any local disputes really since (although have still had national strike action). However, people in the team are much happier at work, and staff turnover slowed massively.

I am a convener.

I certainly wasn't saying that being a good union rep is the answer. In fact, the better you are as a rep (and often revolutionaries, such as myself are the best reps) the more you foster dependence of your co-workers on you and the union as their representative.

This is what we go into in our critique of the unions mentioned above, which I recall you disagreeing with quite vehemently!

I agree with Steven.

The fact is any mass organisation of workers in a completely non revolutionary situation serves to moderate workers power and mitigate the worse of capital's power.

Any directly democratic mass org of workers would fall into the same trap - look at the CGT in Spain and the SAC etc.

That's why we need a revolutionary situation.

In the meantime good reps like Steven and 1000's of non revolutionary but still good ones will make the best of what's available now, and 100's of shit ones will take advantage for their own short term comfort, that's the way it is.

I'm not always a fan of mass meetings to be honest unless it's for a specific reason.

However most basic facilities or recognition agreements here and now - will have scope for mass meetings on work premises and either in or out of work time depending on the issue (generally if it's to discuss management proposals inside work time, and union proposals outside of work time).

Sometimes you just need to use existing agreements to improve things sometimes of course take a more radical approach and if you're lucky you can combine both.

Having said all that, when I was a steward I didn't use all my very generous facility time - instead we did organise mass meetings in works time, generally each shift having an hour a month - but that we because we had high density and high militancy, and I made the decision not to use all the facility time because I didn't want my workmates to think I was lazy.

However I also didn't want to waste time because we had a culture of fairly joyous work thanks to the level of self control we had - no one felt the need to become a rep to skive off, because we ran the job, certainly on nights and weekends.

Facility time and recognition agreements are tools to be used we - did use them to create a great, empowering and educational place to work that went far beyond what the full timers felt comfortable with.

You are quite right, I apologise!

I'm not full-time (although I could have been, but I turned it down, as it would have left me too remote from the shopfloor). I do a week work, a week union, but still receive the pay of my substantive role.

Fulltime release is the worse possible perk to accept. 50% is the absolute maximum, one of my branches has just decided to share 5 days out among 5 branch officers - the best possible option imo.