the ballot paopers will actually be coming out from February 7th (delayed by a month due to legalistic bollocks) with a view to being formally launched no mayday. both execs have given it full supprt, as has a special conference of the T&G (Amicus members weren't actually allowed to discuss details, heck, thats what the exec is for isnt it?), as have both of the (small) broad lefts in the unions. At the T&G conference the only people to oppose it were (by and large) ex-members of the EETPU who left to form another union when the scabs left the TUC. The eetpu is now a part of amicus of course, and amicus bases much of its rule book on the eetpu's! There is currently no rule book in place, just an outline of rules that can be changed virtually at the will of the 'joint general secretaries' - Woodley (who is alright, as said above, like an old CP type) and Simpson (who I wouldnt trust further than I can spit). members will not have a chance to change the rules until 2011, iirr. The recent amicus rule change, to allow the election of full-time officials, has, unsurprisingly, been ditched. the T&G conference was also not allowed to amend any of the proposals as put forward in the merger document, it was merely a rubber stamp exercise.
As to the value of the merger....there are areas where it will be of use in creating a single industry wide union in various areas (car making, aerospace for two), and that's a good thing. But democracy in the unions will be reduced (T&G particularly, the new rules do appear to improve on some of amicus' crapper rules) and the exec will be even more remote than it is now. Whilst it will be a bigger, slightly lefter, bloc within Labour, it will also be far harder to move it from auto-labourism and the vague moves to at least democratise the political funds will be set back.
All in all, it's 50-50, no more than 60-40 in either direction, I think I'll vote against, but could still be convinced to support, under duress.
. Would you mind just expanding on this a bit?
