UNISON passes policy Trans Equality - Louder and Prouder

[frazzled1]

twitter.com/JamesAnthonyRN/status/1537022734953328640

“Trans women are women, trans men are men, non binary identities are valid”

Unison seems to allow Branches a lot of flexibility to determine what a quorum is for a Branch meeting and for a Branch Committee Meeting (I am in Unite and am familiar with unions but not the specifics of different unions):

duckduckgo.com/?q=unison+branch+quorum

First up in the Search Results:
www.unison-essex.org.uk/branch-rules/

4. Branch structure

1. The quorum for any general meeting, including the annual meeting is 1.5% of the branch at a single meeting or through aggregate meetings

1. The branch management group will be responsible for the day to day management of the branch in accordance with the decisions and authority delegated by the branch committee. Its membership and role is as described in rule 7 below.

6. Branch Committee

Representation on the branch committee will be agreed by the AGM and will include:
Branch officers
Representatives of self-organised groups
The convenors for each section (or all stewards where there is no sectional structure).

The branch committee shall administer branch business in accordance with UNISON rules and guidance.

The quorum for the branch committee shall be 33% (one third) of the members of the committee.

The branch committee shall ensure that sections within the branch are appropriately and equitably resourced to ensure the effective participation of members, recruitment and organisation, representation, and collective bargaining and campaigning on behalf of members in each section.

The branch committee will establish arrangements for the individual representation of members.

The branch committee shall meet monthly.

7. Branch Management Group

The Branch Management Group shall comprise the branch secretary, branch chair, branch treasurer, section convenors, the branch equalities officer (and others as appropriate)

The Branch Management Group will meet to ensure the effective day to day management of the branch within the parameters of the decisions and guidance issued by the branch committee. The Branch Management Group may commit to no expenditure, policy decision or affiliation that has not been previously agreed by the branch committee.

==============

I have no idea how many members there are in that Branch but anyone can see from the above that it is perfectly possible for a handful of people to determine Branch Policy, submit resolutions to annual conference, decide who to send to annual conference and sometimes mandate them how to vote on specific motions.

My Unite Branch had over 1,000 members and we were lucky if we got 6 people (the quorum) to a Branch meeting. We tried everything we could think of to attract members to attend - rotating venues, days, times of day, running raffles, education events, paying for child-care, etc. etc. It was soul-destroying. Most of the time, three Branch Officers made all the decisions by convening a Branch Committee Meeting when not even three other people bothered to turn up.

See how easy it can be to take over a Trade Union when members are not motivated to get involved?

Most members of most unions do not want to get involved with the running of their unions, they have other priorities.

However, if your priority is having a trade union that respects women's sex-based rights then you have to get involved, get organised with others, men and women, who share your values, and take control.

The Women's Trade Union Federation (WTUF) is made up of GC Women in different unions. There is an active Unison GC Women's Group.

WTUF has already run one online workshop for women who are new to getting involved with their trade unions and more are planned.

You can contact WTUF on Twitter:
twitter.com/WomensTUF

Or you can DM Fiona MacDonald, who started this initiative:
twitter.com/Fiona44444

There is a website in the making and there will be an email address to contact WTUF soon (things stalled for a while due to Fiona being very poorly with Covid).

Watch this thread if you are interested because I will post any updates here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4481455-Womens-Trade-Union-Federation-Unions-are-being-reclaimed-by-Women

As I said before, @SunbowRainshine31 just calling people "radicalised" and "far right" doesn't make it so.

You have to show your working I'm afraid.

My husband likes to call me right wing, because I once got sent a flyer from the Brexit party. Of course, the only reason he tries to use this to wind me up is because he knows that I’m left wing. If I wasn’t left wing, calling me right wing wouldn’t work as a tease.

Thanks Bosky I will look that up.
Your post is an excellent explanation of how a few people can influence a decision which then appears to have a much larger level of support.
I do find the accusations of radicalisation and right wing influence perplexing - I can see why it's being repeated though, as repetition becomes embedded as a kind of truth if you say it often enough.
Most of the people I have talked to on this issue are just ordinary people, who are often Labour voters and the nub of any concern boils down to wanting children to receive appropriate support for any issues that stops short of dangerous or irreversible harm until they are old enough to make informed decisions and for women's spaces to be respected where appropriate. It's not transphobia, it's the fact that some men will use any opportunity to lever an advantage over women. This is our lived experience. Abusive and unpleasant men will not respect trans rights either.
Being told that you are bigoted and radicalised for expressing concerns is tiresome. It's also a lazy dog whistle designed to shut down debate. It's also not true.

The capture of the unions is one of the hardest pills to swallow for me in all of this.

This is a textbook far-right response.

Being opposed to paedophilia is a textbook far-right response?

Think you're in danger of giving the game away there, Sunbow.

As I said before, @SunbowRainshine31 just calling people "radicalised" and "far right" doesn't make it so.

You have to show your working I'm afraid.

Agreed.

It is for me too, as a trans widow to know that they want to take trans widows rights away without having ever consulted us.

By which I'm referring to Unison supporting abolishing the Spousal Exit Clause

I know all about the reality of sex and biology because I grew up in the country and did work experience on a stud farm (a gelding is different from a stallion, but it's definitely not a mare). Never realised I was being radicalised, it didn't feel that exciting at the time.

What rights do they want to take away?

Perfect explanation!

What rights do they want to take away?

The right to determine your own sexuality?

Spousal veto. So the right to decide who you are married to or to even discuss the options. Again, no debate. Women just need to accept.

members of the public 'going to the council' to chat flytipping/bins/arrears etc will be totally on board with pronoun name badges (FACE PALM)

Well The person you are married to hasn't actually changed have they? They are the person you married for better for worse , in sickness and in health

You don't have a right to push a divorce through before he buys a. Sport car for example

But by rebranding you a lesbian they have made a statement about your sexuality which is a protected characteristic

@SunbowRainshine31 Hmmm so I’m going to assume your not a union member.

Can you please explain your thinking on the fact that a number of us have said we are/were union members for a number of years (decades!), thus making us most likely left leaning and yet you think we’re in fact radically to the right?

Or are you suggesting that we’ve all be tricked into be being right wing without even knowing it? Do you think we are all that thick? That we don’t actually know what we believe and need you to come along and educate us?

But what is the right of spousal veto, exactly?

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing which automatically nullifies a marriage when one of the parties transitions, or which prevents one of the parties from divorcing after one of them transitions.1

If someone transitions they then claim they are in a lesbian marriage - giving their stbx partner the lesbian identity which is not the sexuality with which they identify

Your sexuality is yours to choose not someone else's

Therefor the marriage should be terminated before transition if the none transgender partner does not wish to be considered to be in a lesbian relationship

JFC!!! People coming on here lecturing us, telling us they know better than us what we believe and what our politics are - and they don't even know what the "spousal veto" aka "spousal exit clause" is!

Time wasters!

Am I right in thinking that the spousal veto allows the marriage to be annulled rather than needing to be ended by divorce?

Yes! Because heaven forbid the non trans partner should have any say whatsoever in their own marital situation. It has to be all about the trans person's feelings 🤢

Yep.

I suspect ‘time wasters’ is on the money. Or derailment. I’m seeing it time and time again on these conversations.

Plop in spout some shite along the lines of ‘you’re all fascists’ and then sit back and watch as the topic of the thread is lost. Oh and ignore all the evidence provided by posters not providing any evidence to back up their POV.

We need to start ignoring them if they don’t respond to our polite requests to enter an adult discussion.

It's never really explained why the wife has to be dragged through a divorce instead of having the option of annulment, is it? Or why any decent husband would want to impose such a restriction on his wife, in the context? I suspect it's purely that the word "veto" can be dishonestly deployed to get sympathy from useful idiots, and also that some people like the idea of controlling others while playing the victim.