UKBA we knew about, it's the PCS I'm disgusted by

One current story may well go unnoticed by the majority of the population, but it deserves to be front page of every newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/08/uk-border-agency-investigation-concerns

This case has been on the radar for a while, and is the most tangible of what anyone involved in Asylum knows to be true: that the UKBA is a horrific and disgraceful organisation. Anecdotally, there are plenty of stories regarding the terrible behaviour of it's staff and indeed policy makers. My personal 'favourite' is of the asylum seeker rejected because his claim was based on guerilla activity near his hometown. The UKBA, with their usual thoroughness, rejected him on the basis that 'There are no gorillas near your home town. We have consulted several WWF reports, and none of them verify your claim. Furthermore, large apes have rarely been known to attack humans, therefore we do not accept that your life is under threat if you return'.

It is regretable that this inquiry was unable to do more than criticise. I see how it has problems with being unable to substantiate the claims of the lady concerned. After all, how could they? The issue, however, is institutional racism, exactly as it was in the Met which the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. That is what should have been the conclusion of this investigation: a serious report was needed into the culture of the UKBA, with a view to at best its dissolution and at least a shake-up of how it operates.

What i wasn't expecting to find out was the appalling behaviour of the PCS - the union whom UKBA workers are members. They have directed their members not to co-operate with the report, deliberatly obstructing its progress and ability to reach a firm conclusion. This primarily shows the PCS, whose leader Mark Serwotka has been highly vocal in taking the moral highground in criticising the government for cuts, to be a morally bankcrupt body. It is also a sad indictment of the state of British Trade Unionism today.

On the first charge, there is no defence. Unions are incredibly important at protecting their workers from exploitation and serious abuse from their more priveleged and inherently more powerful employers. In doing so, they have historically been absolutely vital in reversing many of the dynamics which keep the poor poor and the rich rich. They as such have a strong ethical character. However, their is not an ounce of morality in what the PCS are doing. The people who are affected by the institutional racism of the UKBA workforce are individuals who have fleed persecution and they have been unfairly left to live on the streets or return to their coutnries where they face rape, torture and probably death. There is no question the victims of the UKBA workforce are less well off than the PCS members. Unions should protect their members, but they should not protect their racist members, to allow them to continue treating innocent people in the most despicable way.

Regrettably, this is further evidence of a trend all too prevalent. Indeed, it has been the overwhelming characteristic of unions for the entire time I have been politically aware. They are no longer interested in securing for their workers a fair deal, but securing for their workers the most they possibly can at whatever expense. This does not stop just because their workers are comfortable. It is unquestionable, blinkered self-righteousness and without any element of perspective or relativity. This example with the PCS is crystal clear, but the recent BA strikes to reinstate 'travel perks' are equally pathetic. The question unions should be asking is not 'is this good for me?' but 'is this good for society as a whole?'. When the answer is yes, as it historically has been much of the time, then they should act and have every moral right to do so. But time and time again the answer is no, but time and again the Unions fail to ask the question. While they continue to do so, they have no moral authority.