TUDA News
July 2007
Inside this issue
Page 1 TUDA AGM
Page 2 Single
Equality Act and Disability Rights Commission
Page 3 Disability
Committee
Page 6 Roy Webb & CO-OP Funeralcare
Page 7 Remploy
Page 9 London's
Freedom Pass & How to join TUDA
Page 10 TUDA Merchandise &
Spain with the Martins
TUDA
AGM
All TUDA members said they had a
very good time, and if you missed the AGM it was a shame, because it was
excellent as usual.
Phil Madelin spoke about Access to Work scheme and Richard Rieser spoke about the new European
Disability Work he has done.
Both spoke telling us lots of things we did not already know.
Just
a thought from the TUDA newsletter editor
In an attempt to try to save TUDA
money and speed up the provision of information, if you have e-mail (and we
understand not everyone does), would any TUDA members like to have all future
newsletters via e-mail? Please let us know!
E-mail your editor Richard Cook on findcook@hotmail.com
Thanks to those who signed up after
reading recent newsletters.
NB: Views expressed in this
Newsletter are not necessarily those of all the trade unions represented on our
Executive but reflect the opinion and policies of most of them.
Our website www.tuda.org.uk also has lots of news and information
TO CONTACT the newsletter editor, Richard Cook
is at 141 Vale Road, Northfleet, Kent DA11 8BX or at findcook@hotmail.com. Please tell us of any issues you feel we
should cover. We encourage people to submit both information and articles for
inclusion so get writing if you can
TUDA Secretary Alan Martin, Membership Secretary
Sherrell Martin and Co-Chairs Ju Gosling & Caroline Gooding can be contacted
via our box number, BM TUDA, London WC1N 3XX. Email: mail@tuda.org.uk
What TUDA would like to see, in the Green Paper on Single Equality
Act: Discrimination Law Review A Framework for
Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain
The Green Paper for producing a Single Equality Act (SEA)
was published on 12 June (available on the DCLG website). The deadline for
responding is 4 September 2007.
The SEA will bring together all existing equality laws. The
process was launched more than 2 years ago – but this is the first public
consultation. A measly three months over the summer! Could it be that they
arenıt really interested in our views? Never mind – letıs let them know
what we think about is – and more importantly what sort of a law we need
to finally tackle the discrimination and social exclusion of disabled people
– along with women, lesbians and gays, people from religious and ethnic
minorities etc.
The Green Paper is a long and depressing read – 180
pages of smugness and reasons why business says nothing needs to change! Read
the Disability Rights Commissionıs comments on it – on their website. In
sum Bert Massie, Chair of DRC
sends out a clear warning:
'What the Green Paper proposes ignores most of the
recommendations that have been made over the last year to improve the rights of
disabled people. It proposes to virtually destroy the Disability Equality Duty.
My approach to this Green Paper is that it does to disability rights what a
bulldozer does to a building. Although there are a few new rights proposed on
some other strands, on disability this is an appalling Green Paper. If it goes
through as it is it will do enormous damage to disabled people and will unravel
lot of successes of the last 10 years. I hope the government will think twice.'
The Government have a manifesto commitment to produce a SEA.
It was supposed to look at the poor enforcement of the current law- and make
changes to improve it. We want all discrimination cases to be heard in equality
tribunals (as part of the employment tribunal service). This would make it much
easier to bring cases – no fees to take a case and much less risk of
having to pay the legal expenses of the other side if you lose. The procedures
are much easier too!
The Green Paper opposes this.
It says
nothing about the need to move away from the present ridiculously complicated
medical model definition of disability – to a social model definition. It
says nothing about making sure disabled people volunteering; air travel and
ferries are protected from discrimination. It says nothing at all about
education. We could go on!
Tell them
what sort of a law we need
TUDA would
like to see:
* Stronger
enforcement mechanisms: equality tribunals, group and representative actions
and effective sanctions.
* Extended
and strengthened duty to promote equality: which applies to all strands;
retains the general dutyıs application to all functions and the requirement on
most authorities to produce public equality schemes; explicitly applies to
public procurement and requires action by inspection bodies.
* A clear
statement in the Act of its purpose: not merely eliminating discrimination but
enhancing dignity and participation and achieving substantive equality through
positive action where required. Such a clause would improve public
understanding and guide courts, tribunals, and everyone else dealing with the
legislation as to how it should be applied and interpreted.
* Banning all
disability discrimination: ships, planes, volunteers and armed services.
* Stronger
protection against education discrimination.
* A simpler,
better definition of disability.
* Protection
for those discriminated against because they are associated with or perceived
to be a disabled person (this would benefit carers, people working with HIV
positive people and many others) and a fairer approach to disability
discrimination per se (protecting anyone discriminated against on grounds of
impairment).
* Protection
against genetic discrimination.
·
Clear
protection against multiple-discrimination.
BRIEFING
The DRC has very similar proposals, this was
worked on by our TUDA
Co-Chair Caroline Gooding who also thankfully also works for the DRC.
These are
available on the DRC website www.drc-gb.org.
ROY WEBB
who was a valued TUDA member and strong UNISION activist
It is
with deep sadness that NCIL announces the loss of our colleague Roy Webb who
died in Kings College hospital, London on 15th June following a
short illness.
Roy
joined NCIL in July 2004 as our head of policy. In this role he responded to consultations on policy issues,
contributed to our policy development particularly in the field of independent
living, and shared his knowledge and expertise with our own members and
individuals and organisations outside NCIL.
Most
recently Roy was involved in co-ordinating and contributing to the Our Lives
Our Choices campaign to support Lord Ashleyıs Disabled Persons (Independent
Living) Bill. Roy played a pivotal
role in starting this campaign and ensuring it received widespread support.
This culminated in the successful launch of the campaign on Monday 18th
June 2007.
Roy
was highly valued by our staff and board members alike. The depth of his knowledge and
commitment to independent living was an inspiration. Roy never had a bad word to say about anyone and the way in
which he used his experiences as a disabled person in a positive way was
inspiration to us all. His death is
a great loss, not just to NCIL but to the wider disability movement. He is
irreplaceable.
We
have received many tributes from those who knew Roy. It is our intention to share these through our website. If you wish to add your contribution
please contact our office or e-mail it to info@ncil.org.uk
TUC
Disability Committee Meeting held on Thursday 24 April 2007 at 11am in Congress
House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS. Agenda
The minutes
of previous meeting were agreed
Sylvia Simons
has resigned; it is far too late in the cycle to consider any co-options. The
committee noted this, we agreed that Mike Johnsonıs nomination will stand at
the disability conference despite him being unable to attend due to illness.
TUC
Disability Conference 2007 final agenda
Due to the
information not being accessible to everyone, everything had to be read out.
Amendments
are all in order, but they have not all been accepted yet? Probably this will
be resolved at next meeting.
Groupings and
the order of the business are a good idea.
Many good
suggestions were made trying to improve our conference and sometimes these were
accepted.
Attitude: we
have a range of options, support, and support with reservations, remit means
you do not take a decision and you refer it to the disability committee. We
have to take a separate view on both the motion and amendment. Or we can
oppose.
We decided
motion 6 will be supported with reservation and someone from the committee will
explain the reservation.
Motion 11
support with qualification. With no agreement yet for the amendment, if it is
accepted the recommendation is support, but if it were not accepted we would
recommend supporting the amendment but express reservations on the unamended motion.
Motion 20 the
office would have problems with terminology and the general sense of the
motion. It is not the case we fail to inform unions of what is going on. Lots
of debate took place on this subject. Because we felt on reflection that what
the motion said was untrue, we asked that it be remitted.
Committee
Speakers explanation. Motion 8 Phil Madelin. Motion 11 Mandy Hudson. Motion 14
if necessary Tony Sneddon. Motion 20 if it is not remitted Helen Rose.
Platform
speakers: The decision the committee must make is. The General secretary address will be on the second day.
We do of
course, want to link up with Jim Murphyıs keynote speech and questions to the
minister and the debate on welfare reform. Therefore the chairs report although
shorter needs to be fitted in first and then Jim Murphy.
I suggested a
rather clever speech from the Chair because Jim will obviously hear it. Then
hear Jim Murphy and this was felt to be an excellent idea, and this was agreed.
Bert Massy
and Kay Carberry for the informal session on the CEHR. I also thought and I
said two speakers would not be enough. I suggested Siobhan Endeen as another
speaker this however was rejected.
DC 4/2 is a
good report.
Other issues.
I said comfort breaks must be built in and no flash photography during
conference is a good idea, this was agreed.
TUC
Disability Conference 2007 Committee.
We went
through each paragraph. A good comprehensive report.
DDA training
for officials. The first course took place last Friday. It seems to be aimed at
just the right level and providing the right information. It was 6 or 7 hours
long. A shame about not making a DVD because unfortunately the Disability
Rights commission declined this request.
DRC help line
report. No other comment: Apart from all unions need to understand the
important need for training. To make sure it does deal with disability issues,
especially if we want to be an authoritative voice.
Presentation
from the Office of Disability Issues officials*
*Paul McCourt from the Office for
Disability Issues will attend at 1.30pm. We had a good debate with ODI and I
expect and hope we said lots of things that made them think a bit differently.
A contact list will be sent to us and we were encouraged to use it and talk to
these important people.
Incidentally: The ODI will have a
stand at our Disability Conference.
Welfare reform. We have held a
social policy forum last month on the implications of the reform bill. We are
planning to do a response of the froid review of Labour market programs. We
need to determine if the new benefit works out in practise, because MPs are
passing this bill without knowing what this benefit will be. MPs are being
unbelievably docile. Another issue is the revised test of eligibility, meaning
the benefit could be partly or completely suspended.
A possible question to Jim Murphy:
He may have been misreported and it
may be useful to find out if he was.
At a recent conference, Jim Murphy
supposedly said. That disabled people who were unable to get work should not be
lifted out of poverty by benefits. They can be lifted out of poverty by pay,
but not by benefits. That was a Financial Times storey parleying what he said.
I would have thought if ever there was a forum in which he ought to be asked is
that what he meant and if it was, would he like to reconsider what he said was
not ideal. It is our TUC disability conference.
Peter said I could ask that question
and I would. I am really looking forward to doing that. An interesting document
indeed.
Response to ODI Consultation: I
found this another interesting document. Many good points raised in the report.
The committee endorsed this document now it had been tweaked very slightly.
Other business: I said I had
received documents from the TUC asking is stress a disability, Also a document
from the Disability Rights Commission. I am really glad I read both of them
because both documents raised things I had not thought of before, so it was
quite a revelation.
Date of next meeting: 23 May 2007 at
9.30 before conference.
FW: co-op Funeralcare Sack and Discriminate against Their Disabled Workers with Dismissal and Pay Cuts Of £5k
GMB
demands an immediate stop to sackings and cuts
Co-operative
Funeral Care has started sacking some and cutting the pay of other disabled or
sick employees. Five members of the Co-ops staff, the majority of them women,
have either been given a monthıs notice by their local co-op managers or are
having their pay cut by £5,000 per year because of their disability. This
reduces their annual pay as full-time staff to around £14,000.
GMB Congress
in Brighton today was told that Co-op Funeral Care has sent letters to these
disabled employees saying that they are being sacked or having their pay cut
because they are unable to do the same work as their able bodied colleagues.
This allegation is outlawed under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). GMB
has lodged Employment Tribunals.
The first reported sackings and pay
cuts have affected co-op staff in Watford, Enfield and Woolwich. The Co-op
Funeral Care employs around 2,500 people in 600 funeral homes and GMB fear that
this is the start of a new policy that will affect workers in all parts of the
UK.
One worker who is disabled as a
result of an accident while working for Co-op Funeral Care has been targeted
for the £5K pay cut.
Phil Davies, GMB National
Secretary speaking at GMB Congress in Brighton today said, ³The Co-opıs
behaviour is not only illegal but it is scandalous. Not since the AA went after
their disabled employees have we seen so blatant and open attack.
Co-op Funeral Care must stop
these targeted sackings today. They must re-instate all workers without any
loss of continuity or service and restore the full pay of all their workers
regardless of their level of disability.
Yearıs age the Co-op had an
adverting slogan that claimed the company to be Your caring sharing Co-opı.
How hollow that sounds today as the co-op attacks its disabled workers.²
Ends: Contact: Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary
Remploy: It was Michael Portillo who kick-started Remployıs descent
It was Michael Portillo who
kick-started Remployıs decent, when in 1994 he ended a scheme guaranteeing the
factories priority for government contracts; thus, imposing the disciplines of
government contracts on the company. Remployıs more recent problems stem from
its board of directors and senior management; and, their self-serving running
of the company for at least the past seven-and-a-half years.
Those running Remploy have no
imagination. They merely function as a means to spend the subsidy paid to
Remploy. Over the years, they have squandered opportunities, such as the
example of the Glastonbury T-shirts. A few years ago Mike Eavis (the
Glastonbury Festival site owner) wanted to source the production locally; and
so, in collaboration with the trade unions offered one of the Remployıs
Cornwall sites a million pound contract for the production of its T-shirts.
Remploy prevaricated about it for
a long time; and, when Geoff Martin, an officer of the Battersea and Wandsworth
Trades Union Council reminded a Remploy executive of the issue at a meeting;
the Remploy board member complained about the cost to the company of £50,000 in
set-up costs to take on the T-shirt contract. Geoff, a tough no-nonsense trade
union organiser, simply said these words to the windy capitalist: ³Youıve got
to speculate to accumulate!²
Remploy is still in the business
of prevarication, rather than that of ensuring all its factory order books are
full; and, its staff of well-trained and skilled disabled workers are active
and productive, it chooses to do nothing.
Since January 2006, each Remploy
factory has had the right to a minimum of one reserved public contract. Up to
now: there have been no take-up for this scheme. In effect, the company has
ignored the opportunity to tap into a reserve of contracts valued at £250
billion per year, a small per cent of these contracts would ensure an abundance
of work for the entire Remploy factory system. Remploy could produce everything
from furniture to nurses' uniforms; police and the armed forces uniforms, the
transport infrastructure and the building of schools and hospitals and the
equipment that goes with them.
On the 21st May, the
day before they announced which factories were to be closed; Remploy gave the knife
it had stuck into our backs a cruel twist when it engaged a Senior
Public Procurement Manager. This is bitter irony, coming now.
Every Remploy factory now has a
learning centre. Though widely used by the workers for a range of courses.
These centres remain largely under-utilised. These
centers could offer income-generating opportunities for the business if offered
to outside 3rd party organizations when not being utilized by Remployıs staff.
The Remploy Trade Union Consortium is the only group that
comes out of this debacle with any dignity. They have, along with their
activists and members, tried to sort out the mess created by the board and its
scorched earth policies of recent years. We have offered the company an
alternative business plan, see link.
Remploy has ignored this carefully laid
out and feasible action plan, in favor of a reactionary plan to close down half
the factories. This decision is in keeping with this treacherous bunch of timid
unimaginative no-hopers.
If the factory closures go ahead,
around 2,500 disabled people will lose their jobs; and, many of these will
never work again and their skills will rust away. The company spin is that they
will be employed in mainstream jobs but most disabled workers are at Remploy
because mainstream employers have rejected them and continue to reject them as
a matter of course.
Written by Seán McGovern
London's Freedom Pass -
Statement
We have added this comment to a statement prepared by the
Mayor and to be circulated with TU and celebrity endorsement:
"The TUC in London understands the value of a
London-wide free travel
Scheme to older and disabled people. We are pleased to add
our voice in
Support of the Freedom Pass and to support the Mayor's
guarantee for its
Continued
funding. Free travel for older and disabled Londoners is the