(Branch Secretary, CPSA ONS Newport -personal capacity) The long saga of merger between the two biggest civil service unions, CPSA and PTC, has entered what may be its final chapter.
On Saturday, 13 September, both unions held special delegate conferences which were the last chance for branch activists to debate the proposed merger before an allmembers' ballot.
Instead of the wide-ranging debate which could have been had about the future of civil service trade unionism, the proceedings were relegated to, at best, symbolic importance by the insistence of the two National Executive Committees (NECs) that each conference debate only one motion, proposed by themselves.
CPSA's motion was the more absurd of the two: "This conference supports the concept of a democratically based merger with the PTC."
Given the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the proposed rulebook, and his consistent disregard for union democracy, this shows either a grotesque sense of humour, or a total detachment from reality, on the part of General Secretary Barry Reamsbottom.
Although the amalgamation of the two unions could, potentially, create a formidable fighting force in the civil service, capable of organising all-out strike action in defence of jobs, pay and conditions, the proposals currently on offer suggest a very different scenario.
The proposed rule-book for the new union (to be called PCS), represents an attempt by the right-wing groupings currently running the two unions to institutionalise their autocratic style of leadership. Among the proposals are that national conferences and NEC elections should be held not annually, as at present, but biennially; and that only one of the senior full-time officials should be subject to election.
Furthermore conterence s status as the union's governing body is to be downgraded, with the NEC making more frequent use of allmembers' ballots to validate their decisions. Judging by past experience, these exercises would be a parody of democracy, with members voting in isolation, on the basis of one-sidea intordtion from the NEC, without having had any discussion at branch level.
All of this is in outright defiance of conference policy. Motions passed at both unions' 1996 conferences spelt out a detailed list of democratic safeguards. intended to provide the framework of the new constitutIon.
Instead of negotiating for merger on this basis, and bringing the results to conference for agreement, the NECs drew up a rule-book on their own terms and suddenly presented it to members for an unnecessary and meaningless postal ballot in January.
The misleading information given to members helped to ensure that the vote went the NECs' way, and they then used this mandate' to brush aside the inevitable censure motions passed at the 1997 conferences.
The CPSA leadership even carried out a second, equally meaningless, ballot in July, to give them further ammunition for the special conference.
Activists at both conferences voted overwhelmingly against the NECs' motions, but they have nevertheless pressed ahead with the final, legally obligatory members' ballot, without changing one word of their proposed rule-book.
The Left in both unions now face a real challenge: to counter the NECs' propaganda and deliver a 'no' vote. To do this, they will need to convince many sceptical members that the leftright political divisions over the constitution are relevant to the battles to improve their pay and conditions. and safeguard their jobs.
In the longer term, they need to prove the point by practical example, providing the fighting leadership that civil service trade unionists need to reverse the attacks inflicted upon them over the last eighteen years.