You are:

The ISU breathtaking hypocrisy

Integration agreement

Members may have seen the ISU Circulars, Parts 1,2 and 3 in late August and the exhaustive response from PCS in HO/MB62/09. In part 1 of the sequence, the ISU described the PCS interim integration agreement with management as “hastily reached” and “cobbled together”.

Imagine our surprise, therefore, when on 31 August the ISU leadership went to their members to recommend precisely the same proposed agreement as that concluded by PCS some weeks earlier.

The substance and duration of that which the ISU is recommending to it’s members is exactly that which PCS negotiated, with the leverage of overwhelming support for industrial action in a proper statutory ballot.

In attempting to denigrate the achievements of PCS and its members, but then recommending the same package, the ISU leadership has indulged in breathtaking hypocrisy.

So what is different?

What is different is that the ISU leadership has agreed to “actively encourage(d) their (members) participation in such (integration-linked) activities”.

Presumably, that means that the ISU now “actively encourage(s)” its members to volunteer for changed roles and teamworking.

In withdrawing its advice to members not to volunteer for integration-linked activities, PCS resisted attempts by management to elicit positive encouragement.

We did this because we recognise that the interim settlement – which is all it is - until May 2010 is only an opportunity to address a multitude of issues raised by integration, to see if a way forward can be found which is compatible with members’ wishes; it is not in itself a resolution of those issues.

Nothing has changed with respect to our concerns around compulsory change to job content, ways of working and rosters; and nothing has changed in respect of the underlying terms and conditions issues around pay and patterns of attendance. The big challenges have yet to come.

Tit for tat?

Many readers of the recent exchanges will be tempted to conclude that they are no more than unproductive tit for tat.

Underneath the invective, however, is a truly serious issue about how best the interests of all within UKBA are represented at time of unprecedented change: by a TUC affiliated union with considerable resources and real bargaining strength in UKBA, the Home Office and beyond, as evidenced for example by the protection of Civil Service Pensions from Government attacks, or by a small, anachronistic organisation with limited influence and resources.

If you’re an ISU member reading this Briefing, please think about it, for all our sakes.