Good day: UNISON members in local government, together with their colleagues from Unite, have started their 48 hour strike [1] in support of their demand for an above-inflation pay rise. Picket lines were impressive and positive at various Leicester City Council offices this morning, and even a short speech from me didn't dampen their mood at the lunchtime rally in Leicester's Town Hall Square.

The Leicester rally was attended by several hundred strikers in loud voice and good spirits.  Speakers from both the Leicester City and Leicestershire County UNISON branches emphasisd the need to build on the success of today, not just tomorrow but in future action, and invited guests from the PCS, the NUT and other local unions all talked about the need for greater public sector trade union unity if we are to break the Government-imposed pay limit. A recurring theme was the anger at public sector workers being made scapegoats for government policy, and that low paid workers are the victims, not the cause, of inflation. Strikers reacted with cheers to news that postal workers, milk deliveries and even the "person who cleans the water dispenser in the council offices" all refused to cross the picket lines.

Other bloggers have already posted up some good pictures of strike rallies [2] and commented on the effect of the strike [3].

I was a little bit disappointed to note that the slogan on UNISON's banners, stickers and placards was declaring that our members were on strike "for fair pay". As has been previously explained [4], that demand is both conservative and yet impossible to acheive. While I am realistic enough not to have expected the UNISON machinery to have taken Marx's advice and, ahem, inscribed on their banners the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wages system", I had hoped for something a little more concrete. "Strike for 6%", perhaps?

Comrades and colleagues on the recently established Local Government Activists' [5] email list report positive picket lines in the North East, and also across London. And the AWL website carries reports from Huddersfield and Nottingham [6].

Bad day: After attending the strike rally I returned to work and spent the afternoon trying to deal with two issues: an employer who didn't want us to circulate a UNISON newsletter for members in which we criticised not the employer but the NHS Trust responsible for funding the employer in question, and a member of staff who was recently disciplined and is now suffering from stress at the thought of returning to work in a downgraded role and has been written to by the employer insisting that he attends a meeting at which "decisions" would be made regarding his continued employment at the hospital, despite the fact that neither our sickness policy nor our disciplinary policy allows managers to call such a meeting.

And then I received an email reporting on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case known as Allen v GMB [7] - the groundbreaking 'equal pay' case in which a union member has sued their own union for negotiating a settlement of an equal pay claim which fell short of the individual's possible entitlement under law. The case is complex, and has already been decided two ways - in favour of the individual at a tribunal and then in favour of the union at an Employment Appeal Tribunal. Now the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision once again, and ruled that the union's actions in securing the equal pay agreement with Middlesborough council were not "proportionate" to the objectives - in other words that the union unfairly disadvantaged members in encouraging them to agree to the single status deal, and that the GMB therefore acted in a manner which was indirect discrimination.

This ruling will obviously have major legal implications for every trade union, which I am simply not qualified to comment on. All I will say for now is that while clearly union members should always be able to expect their unions to be honest with them, givem them the full facts before inviting them to make decisions and always fight for the best possible deal in every circumstance, I can't see much good coming out of inviting the courts to determine whether those expectations have been met, nor in allowing "no win, no fee" solicitors to profit at trade union members' expense.