What is Motion 26 and why is it needed?
Today, is day one of the NEU National Conference 2023.
It’s an exciting one! Looks like it could be the best ever. As a union we are in the middle of vital industrial action, with the largest mandate and response from a trade union in a very, very long time. It isn’t, as I keep telling the parents and students who pass my school’s picket lines, about pay. It’s also about the funding. It’s also about our profession’s ability to actually retain educators.
We have a new General Secretary in Daniel Kebede. I organised and chaired an online event for LGBT+ members where we heard from Daniel and the other candidate Niamh Sweeney. After that event, I genuinely didn’t know who to support. Both were exceptional candidates.
But with Daniel’s success I am proud and excited at the prospect of our union being led by a Black man, with Daniel’s unique lived experience and a powerful record as an activist and leader. I’m looking forward to working with Daniel in the future (hopefully still as the LGBT+ executive seat holder) to really make an impact on the union’s inclusivity and diversity.
Either of those two points could be a blog post in their own right but what I need to focus on is Motion 26 in the conference programme, and particularly the wrecking amendment from the executive 26.1.
So why is this motion passing unamended so important?
LGBT+ members electing the LGBT+ members that represent them
Organising Forum reps are elected by regional councils to sit on the council as well as their respective Equality Forum.
But, we have a situation where a majority of the people voting are often not LGBT+. Yet the LGBT+ forum reps ‘represent’ LGBT+ members. Its the same with Women, with Black members, and with Disabled members. No disrespect to the men of the union but they are not better able to choose a woman for the women’s Organising Forum than women are.
This is NOT a criticism of regional councils. My West Midlands one is amazingly supportive in its LGBT+ allyship. They are key to much of our activism from Prides (Birmingham Pride won the best regional NEU Pride event) to social events. It is a mutually beneficial relationship in that many local and regional activists in the West Midlands came through the LGBT+ section. It’s literally a win/win!
Recognising non-binary members
The second key ask in the motion, that would be destroyed by the amendment, is that we have to recognise non-binary members properly. This IS already part of our union’s policy position so why isn’t it reflected in the way we constitute our LGBT+ Organising Forum, where our non-binary siblings are most likely to be active?
The current situation is that two thirds of LGBT+ Organising Forum seats are guarded for Women. This rule is pivotal for representation - our union is over 73% women.
But in the specific context of the LGBT+ Organising Forum, this can put non-binary members into the position of having to challenge a man for one seat at the table. If we are to understand the structural advantages that men have, then what does that mean for a non-binary member trying to get elected to the forum?
Maximising member representation
This system also blocks activists. Imagine a region with three organising forum spaces. One activist is a lesbian woman and one is a man. Now let’s imagine there are no other LGBT+ women in that region/nation wishing to represent members on the LGBT+ Organising Forum, but there is a non-binary person who has lived for the majority of their life experiencing the systemic sexism and misogyny faced by women. They would be unable to stand. In that situation there will unfilled vacancies on the organising forum. This happens and is is a real situation.
Maximising member representation
Finally, this motion is not about LGBT+ or Equality Fora running the union. It IS about them being consulted and advising the executive on issues that affect LGBT+ members and students.. The Executive and Annual Conference will still make the governing decisions. They have to, It’s how the union works. But what it does do, is put marginalised groups on the same level as the National Councils. Imagine if those councils, such as Independent workplaces, support staff, and supply were not being consulted on their sectors?
This final point of the motion is vitally important if marginalised voices are to be heard. Equality Fora should be a check and a balance for the Executive. If a committee of Black members can’t say to the eExecutive that a policy proposal is a bit racist, then we aren’t democratic, and we aren’t lay-led - we are simply tokenistic.
I believe the union IS democratic and I value the lay led approach. It’s time to end the tokenism. It’s time to give voice to our members.